tv U.S. Senate CSPAN November 28, 2011 8:30am-12:00pm EST
cuba broadcasting, radio and tv marti. matt lee covers the state department for the associated press. >> just ahead, a forum on the planned closure of camp ashraf in iraq and iran's nuclear threat. and later at 1 p.m. eastern the senate's back for more debate on fiscal 2012 defense programs with possible votes on amendments. at 5 eastern members consider a judicial nomination for the second circuit court of appeals followed by a roll call vote on confirmation at about 5:30. live gavel to gavel coverage here on c-span2. >> also today former director of national intelligence, retired admirable dennis blair, discusses potential defense budget cuts and how they could end endanger u.s. defense
readiness. you can watch his remarks beginning live at 12:15 p.m. eastern over on c-span. and later senator rob portman, a member of the joint deficit reduction committee, talks about the committee's failure to reach an agreement on long-term spending cuts. he'll be followed by a group of analysts offering their thought on the political and economic repercussions of the committee's inability to forge a compromise. the american sewer prize institute -- enterprise hosts the event live at 2 p.m. eastern also on c-span. >> within 90 days of my inauguration, every american soldier and every american prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and back home in america where they belong! [cheers and applause] >> george mcgovern's pledge at the 1972 democratic convention came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon, but his
ground-breaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week on c-span's "the contenders." from the mcgovern center for leadership in mitchell, south dakota, live friday at 8 p.m. eastern. >> next, a discussion on the planned closure of camp ashraf in iraq, and iran's nuclear threat. the camp's residents have been designated terrorists by the u.s. government, yet human rights advocates are calling for their protection and fear they'll be killed if they remain in iraq or are deported to iran. speakers include former homeland security secretary tom ridge, alan dershowitz and howard dean. hosted by the iranian-american community of northern california, this runs about two hours. >> now we have the honor of hearing from someone who's spoken eloquently on this subject before. if you want to know about a
history of a terrorism museum, it's perhaps best to listen to the man who was the first homeland security secretary for our country after 9/11. tom ridge, former governor of pennsylvania, has distinguished himself in service to our nation and can speak more eloquently than almost anybody else on whether this is a terrorist organization or whether the true terrorists are the people who are terrorizing the people of camp ashraf. governor tom rim. [applause] ridge. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> first of all, thank you very much for that warm and gracious greeting. i thank you very much. i don't know who's responsible for the cameras in the back, but i'm going to make a simple request of one of you or all of
you, when you get done filming all of this, send a copy over to the white house and to the department of state. might help them better understand what we're all about today. i'd appreciate it very much. [applause] it has been my great honor and privilege to be associated with many of my colleagues on the dais and with all those gathered and, frankly, have gathered and continue to gather in many places around the world, the iranian diaspora's rather significant, and around the world we gather from time to time to beg and plead, beseech, encourage, cajole, whatever's necessary to make sure that the human rights, the lives of the men and women, the residents of camp ashraf are protected and that they be, ultimately, free to enjoy the freedom and the dignity and the opportunity so consistent with not only their ambitions, but the tradition of
a great culture and a great country. it's become very perm to me -- personal to me. i spent a lot of time looking over the shoulders of mothers who have showed me pictures of husbands and sons and daughters that had been killed by the mullahs in iran or, tragically, the two incursions from the maliki government into camp ashraf. they become really personal, i've received many letters of thanks, undeserving letters, of course, but thanks because i've joined so many of my colleagues publicly supporting the delisting of the pomi and return to safety and freedom of the residents of camp ashraf. it's become very personal to me. i have on my desk in my office the first volume called "fallen for freedom." 20,000 -- 20,000 -- pmoi
martyrs. so when the opportunity was afforded me this morning, i thought i would just share with you through a couple of different lenses or prisms my strong support of you and your family, your extended family, the people you care about and love at camp ashraf. the first is true the prism of -- the first is through the prism of, the first is a way that's really not personal at all if you think about it. it's cold, it's calculating, it's probably as impersonal as you can get. but there's an expression in that part of the world that, basically, speaks to that, and it says the enemy of my enemy is my friend. iran is the enemy not only to the united states, but to the modern civilized world. so if you are an enemy of iran, you must be considered a friend of the western world and
certainly a friend of the united states. and yet we don't seem to quite understand that. so with the hope that you'll send this documentary over to the white house and the department of state, let's just run through the lessons we've learned over the past couple years with regard to iran. they are, have been and continue to be the number one terrorist state in the world. if you're looking for this instability in lebanon, particularly southern lebanon and hezbollah, trace that line right back to iran. if you're looking for the instability in israel, gaza and the west bank, hamas, that dotted line goes right back to iran. if you're looking for individuals in a country responsible for killing american soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, the line goes back to iran.
it is absolutely amazing to me that after perhaps a well-intentioned designation in '97, several administrations ago, the nek as a terrorist organization, we take a look at the history that's transpired thinking that may have improved diplomatic relations, it may have opened the door a little bit to reconciliation to change. what have we seen? so if this effort has led to a, as the international atomic energy recent report concluded, it has showed sanctions have not stopped rapp from maintaining, and i quote, a secret, well-structured nuclear weapons program since before 2004, from
are establishing, i quote, a hidden weapons program disguised with civil programs. they're closer to nuclear arms capability than they've ever been, they continue to kill and are responsible for the death of american soldiers, continue at the heart of the instability deaths in the middle east and continue to be the number one terror state. and all we've asked, all we've asked this administration to do and, frankly, the previous administration's failed to do it as well, is delist the mek, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. the second prism, i think, that we should and can look at the challenges confronting us is to do with iraq.
many of you know i was a soldier in a different war at a different place at a different time. there's a wall down here that has 50,000 names, and there's mothers associated with that. there are over 50,000 moms, gold star mothers, gold star dads. we have at least 4400 who served their country and have lost their lives in iraq. we probably have -- not probably, we have thousands and thousands more coming home with visible and invisible wounds. we've probably spent a half a trillion to a trillion dollars with the hope, with the aspiration, with the goal that once we rid ourselves of saddam hussein, the emerging leadership in it own you week way -- unique way consistent with their culture, but in its own unique way embraced the notion of self-self-government, human rights, free speech, all those
values associate with the the american brand. think about that sacrifice. and think about the notion that having made that sacrifice of both blood and treasure, we elevate to leadership a group of individuals in the maliki administration that turned a deaf ear to the european union, european parliament, hundreds of european legislators who have denied, rather yet unwilling to accept the adjudication of the european union in the u.k. that the mek is not a terrorist organization. have repeatedly used, and i am glad that my friend patrick kennedy brought it up, who continue to use -- this is the irony, the tragic irony -- continue to use america's, our designation of the mek as justification for murdering
innocent men and women on two occasions in '09 and '11. fascinating. in the the hopes that you're going to send this tape over to the white house and the department of state, take a look at the letter that the iraqi government has sent. to the european commission. and in this very letter at the top of the list it says the organization has already been classified by the international community as a terrorist organization. there's only one reason it's there; we helped the government put it there. so to a certain extent, and i'll defer to my distinguished legal colleague on the dais, seems to me there may be a co-conspiracy here. unintended, perhaps, but the fact of the matter, it does look
like we're in collusion. and as long as we continue to designate it as a terrorist organization, they can send these documents around the world justifying, rationalizing, explaining the murder of innocent, unarmed people on two occasions in camp ashraf. i had occasion to be talking to the u.n. high commissioner on refugees about two weeks ago. he expressed grave disappointment and frustration in the maliki government. but i must tell you, and i'm going to look at this through a third lens, he expressed frustration, perhaps even surprise with the united states. and its failure to act. because the continued designation has us frustrated tr limited efforts because they
know even if they get access insofar as the iraqi government has denied them access, we pointed out today, patrick ken key pointed out to -- kennedy pointed out to you even today martin klepper was told by the iraqi government, you must move these men and women to another location in iraq. beginning to wonder why we are so docile, why we are so sub misi have -- sub missive, why we are letting this administration for whom we've sacrificed thousands of lives and that's for more important than the treasure, but significant treasure but to tell us what to do consistent with our broader moral obligation to support humanitarian human rights and to keep our promise which we gave individually to every member of camp ashraf when we also gap teed them -- guaranteed them protections under the geneva convention.
that's the other interesting piece, interesting revelation over the past several days. not only do, does the iraqi government say they are not, they are going the continue to do and treat them as a terrorist organization, but they said they are not protected by the geneva protection. rather remarkable statement for someone who wants to be accepted in the broader world commitment. in the broader world community. it's remarkable the influence that the iranian government seems to have in iraq. let's remind ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, that the maliki government did not win an overwhelming victory, and he had to form a coalition goth. and we all know who he turned to in order to form that coalition government. the same individual that our military and special forces had sought when he was leading the militia in al-sadr who, of course, when he left iraq found
peace and comfort and support in iran. and not only to bring himself back, but he brought a disproportionate amount of iranian influence back. every single day when i was privileged to serve my country and the president as, first, the assistant to the president homeland security and then as secretary of homeland security, i, we called it a threat matrix. and so every day, some days the a couple pages long, sometimes it was a couple dozen pages long, to a variety of those alphabet agencies who gather intelligence from a variety of different sources, there'd be a list of threats against the united states. of course, you don't take them all seriously. many of them were not credible, but you take a look at those thoughts. some we acted upon, some we waited to see if anything would happen, some we just disdo you wanted. but the -- discounted. but the bottom line in my time both in the white house and as
the first secretary of the department of homeland security not once, not one single time did i ever see a threat directed to the united states from any resident of or supporter of the mek. but we, for whatever reason, for whatever reason, continue to list them. so i've got an idea. i've got an idea. maliki is coming to this country on december 12th. and i really hope this tape gets to the white house. the state department issues visas, and the department of homeland security -- although the visa has been issued -- has the right to deny you access
into this cup. it's an interesting juxtaposition. one issues the visa, and the other opens the door and lets you in. well, i've got an idea. let's send a couple conditions before we open the door. how about delisting the mek? [applause] [applause] >> oh, i appreciate that, but there's a lot more. we're going to delist, we're going to insist that they cooperate with u.n. high commission on refugees, we're going to insist that the initial interviews take place in camp ashraf. [applause]
we're going to insist that the united nations provide security for both the u.n. high commissioner and his team as well as the residents of camp ashraf. and we'll insist that the united states take a leading role not only in the form of the united nations, but with our friends around the world to see to it that these men and women who, by the way, have probably given us as much information about iraq's nuclear capability than our own intelligence organization -- we must think about that and recognize it as well -- those ought to be the conditions. delist, cooperate with the u.n., keep them at camp ashraf, support the men and women of ashraf with blue helmets as well as u.n. high commissioner and take a leadership role in getting these men and women resettled in companies who will embrace them, their families and their beliefs in a non-nuclear,
peaceful, tolerant iran. [applause] one final thought. you know, there's been a lot of discussion about the term used describing president obama's leadership with regard to libya. some say it was effective means of advancing a broader humanitarian interest and building a coalition, others aren't as supportive. but you know what i'm talking about. the expression was the president was able to lead from behind.
i simply say this to my president, and he is my president. mr. president, this is a time that you must lead from the front. [applause] you can ask any soldier, any marine one of the most difficult tasks on any mission is walking point. because sometimes that individual or individuals walking point take the initial hit, they take the flak. they're the ones who end counter the enemy. but right now on this issue, mr. president, you have to walk point. delist mek and provide them the protection until the rest of the world can welcome them with open, open arms to promote a free, independent, non-nuclear iran. we need a regime change, and the first place to start is to delist the mek. walk point, mr. president. [applause]
[applause] >> thank you, mr. secretary. governor, former member of the house. but also veteran of the united states of america, and thank you for your service to our cup. to our country. now i have the honor to introduce another individual who has a distinguished record not only as chairman of the democratic national committee, as a governor, as a presidential candidate, but i wanted to highlight another thing, another title that he's worn, and that is physician, medical doctor. because all of us who are familiar with the service of madison know the hippocratic oath.
first, do no harm. so i think it's appropriate today that he speak to us as he has so eloquently on many occasions before about how do we take that hippocratic oath in med sip and a-- in medicine and apply it to public policy? first, let's do no harm. let's not allow another assault and massacre at camp ashraf. let's now hear from a real human rights leader, howard dean. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] patrick, tom, thank you for your long help on this issue. um, i started this in january of this year never imagining that we would be here 41 days from the expiration of the guarantee
that president maliki, prime minister maliki has given us, 41 days from the potential execution of 3500 unarmed people whom the united states has promised to defend, 41 days. we have wasted nearly 300 days because the government of the united states of america could not get off its butt and figure out what we stood for as a country. and that is fundamentally wrong. i want to talk, first, about the united nations. the united nations made, in my view, a courageous vote and admitted, unesco admitted the palestinians as a member nation of unesco. for that the law in the united states demands that they be prevented from getting any contributions from our congress. it's about 20% of their budget.
now, i generally think the united nations is an institution that's important in the world. and i'm, i think it's a mistake to defund them. but yesterday the person who is representing the united nations made the ridiculous suggestion that the people from ashraf be redistributed inside iraq and that somehow without any guarantee of protection either from the united states or the united nations they would be fine. how can i go to the congress of the united states and ask them to restore the money for the united nations if this kind of cowardly policy is what we get in return from the united nations? we can do better than this, and i ask the representatives of the united nations to think about what they are doing. [applause] we expect in return for our investment in the united nations, we expect courage, and we have seen virtually none of
it from theup. from the u.n. in protecting these 3500 individuals in ashraf who have written guarantees, every single one of them, from the united states government that we would protect them and who have been screened by the federal bureau of investigation's anti-terrorist squad, and not one of them has been found to have terrorist connections. explain to me, martin cokeler, what rationale you give for what you have done which is, essentially, sign the execution okay for 3500 unarmed civilians. that is not what the united nations is supposed to be doing. now, both representative kennedy and secretary ridge talked about the visit of prime minister maliki that's to occur in the white house. i understood that white house visits were a status symbol, something that was very
important to the people who were getting them. a sign of recognition that these are important countries. we have not mentioned that prime minister maliki is under investigation by the spanish judiciary for war crimes which occurred in ashraf in april of 2011. how is it that the president of the united states is now inviting a person who is being investigated for war crimes to come and sit in the oval office? that oval office does not belong to the president of the unite, it belongs to every up with of us americans, and we need to be proud of the people who sit in it. [applause] i don't believe we ought to create verdicts about people before they get tried, and the prime minister has not been tried for war crimes. but there is not any question that the prime minister sent
iraqi troops into ashraf on april 8th of 19 -- 2011. and can that 36 ashrafis -- actually, 38 because two dies later because medical care was withheld -- those people were murdered in cold blood by the troops that were sent by prime minister maliki. that means that if that evidence turns out to be true, and i believe it is true, that he will, in fact, be convicted in the spanish courts of war crimes. i believe that nouri al-maliki, the man who we enabled to be elected prime minister of iraq, is a war criminal. and i believe that we do not as an american people or as an american government consort with war criminals. we may have to talk with war criminals from time to time. we should be talking with them about how we're going to save lives, and we have an obligation to save those lives.
the united states government needs to pay attention. we get reassured that they are paying attention. it is not enough to say you are paying attention. we have 41 days left. when we started this out, we had 341 days left. 300 days have gone by where people have been paying attention. 3500 unarmed people in the desert in iraq charged, told by the american government that they were going to be protected in writing. we have an obligation here. i understand that the ambassador has said, well, we want to be helpful, but we don't have a responsibility. mr. board -- mr. ambassador and mr. president, we do have a responsibility. we gave our word, and we gave it in writing. we have a responsibility. it is a legal responsibility. i do not want my country to be complicit in the carrying out of
war crimes. as the dutch found out, people who turn the other way are complicit. which brings me to the penultimate point. i don't know why the mek is still on the terrorist list. there are some smart lawyers here who are going to, i'm sure, tell you it shouldn't be, and i don't think it should be either, but i'm not a lawyer. we can debate whether or not i'm smart. [laughter] but i do know that there is not much evidence that i can see, no one has presented evidence to the congress, no one has presented evidence to the intelligence committees behind closed doors, no one has presented any evidence in public or private as i understand from members of the intelligence committee that the terrorist
the mullahs who run iran, instead of the people who ought to be designing our state department which is the president, state policy, foreign policy which is the president and the state department. the mullahs appeared to be running the foreign policy of the united states of america. now, i'm in this for two reasons. i'm in this because i think a terrible injustices being done to 35 people, 3500 people who we promised to keep safe. i believe the united states is a great nation, and we have to keep our word. but i'm in this for a bigger reason than that. the real reason i'm in this does not have much to do with ashraf. doesn't have much to do with the mek. it has to do with united states of america. this country was founded on the notion that we are raising the
bar on expect nations of what human beings were all about 235 years ago. if you look, i don't, i'm not a big fan of this american exceptionalism stuff. i don't think americans are better than asians or south african-americans are africans or anybody else, but i do think we are an exceptional nation, because of the content of our founding documents, the declaration of independence and the constitution. because those documents set forth something that had never been done at that time, and they're still something things in a to protect people that are not in any of the constitution of the world, mostly protection of political minority's. because that is in a lot of other constitutions. what that means is the united states of america stood as a beacon for the rest of the world. we don't even always, we don't always live up to our own standards, but we have a high standard of what our obligation
is to our fellow man. the reason people have come even and it's our failings, admire the united states is because we are willing to expect more of ourselves as a nation. that is what is at stake here. how we are willing to act on what we can expect for ourselves. i'm sure when the 41 days passes, if harm comes to the people of ashraf, you will get people and political places that will say well, we didn't have enough time. we started this 341 days ago, at least when i got involved, and you start this long before that. we've had enough time but we have allowed the time to trickle through our fingers, and it is not acceptable. mr. president, we need to act now, not just for the people in trenton, not just because when i want to stand up and have regime change in iran. we need to act now because we're standing up for our own country
when we stand up for the people in ashraf. if we fail to do that, we have not just be complicit in the murder of 3500 people who we promised to defend, we are complicit in the face in our own country, and they do not believe that any american president ever should be part of that. [applause] >> now, i have a great honor of introducing somebody who can address not only the legal elements and underpinnings of a situation, but the moral underpinnings of a situation. because those are alan dershowitz has spent his career making sure that we stay true to
the truth, whether it is reflected in law, or whether it is reflected in our conscious. that is why he has become known as the top lawyer for civil liberties and human rights, and here to talk to us today is professor alan dershowitz. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, congressman. thank you. what a personal honor it is for me to be addressing you here today, not only because of the distinguished company i'm in on this podium, but because of all of you out there, but for another very personal reason as well. my religious tradition as well as the islamic religious tradition says that he who saves even a single human life, it is as if he or she has saved the entire world.
we are here today to save the world, and what an honor that is for all of us. [applause] >> now that the living regime has collapsed and syrian regime is under fire, the most repressive regime in the middle east, perhaps in the entire world, is ahmadinejad iran. the mullahs who run the terrorists, bureaucracy employ torture, rape, disfigurement and murder, to suppress dissent. they threaten genocide against their enemies, and seek to develop genocidal weapons capable of wiping entire nations off the face of the earth. they blow up embassies and community centers. with massive casualties including women and children. they target people including ambassadors. based on religious ethnicity and national affiliation. they finance and facilitate terrorism and attacks both
against civilians and soldiers, including so many of our own. they commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and incitement to genocide. they are international criminals and unlike other criminal groups, they kill the witnesses to their crimes in order to prevent them from giving testimony against their leaders. now they are planning a mass killing of the largest concentration of witnesses to their crimes in the world today. those who are living in camp ashraf in iraq. 3400 unarmed iranian dissidents, many of them eyewitnesses to the worst abuses of the regime over many years. many of them witnesses to the murder of their own family members. these are people who can give testimony. where the international criminal court were to indict ahmadinejad and others have committed
international crimes, and they should and may well do that, some of the most important -- [applause] him i can tell you that that issue is actively under consideration today. some of the most important witnesses might come from the 3400 residents of camp ashraf. that is one important reason why the potential war criminals to run the iranian regime must so anxious to see camp ashraf shutdown, and the witnesses exposed as one human rights lawyer put it, to quote the tender mercies of iranian executioners. it is the current intention of the iraqi government to close down camp ashraf the day american soldiers leave, which is at the end of the year. you know that the iraqi government reiterated that any memorandum to the european union.
the residents now, as we all know, have a very, very little time to figure out a way to keep themselves out of the clutches of the iranian killers who will surely be hunting for them. already dozens have been killed, hundreds wounded by iraqi soldiers who are unsympathetic to iranian dissidents. the united states military has granted these dissidents protected person status under the fourth geneva convention, and the u.n. high commission for refugees has declared them asylum seekers who are entitled to international protection. but there will be no one to actually protect its camp ashraf is close down, and arrangements are not earlier made to provide safe travel and safe haven to them here there are movements afoot to bring the case against iranian leaders and the international criminal court, as i mentioned that efforts are underway to try to persuade several nations that are signatories to their own treaty to file charges, including
incitement to genocide and the murder of dissidents. if this would've happened, the witnesses who currently reside in camp ashraf would secure the additional status of protected witnesses and the prestige of the international criminal court might weigh heavily in favor of assuring that they were not harmed by a reigning killers assigned to keep them from giving relevant testimony. i intend to communicate directly to the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court, and urge him to grant witness protected status to the potential witnesses who, today, are in that camp. [applause] and it is an international crime to tamper with witnesses or to
murder witnesses. that's what the mafia does. it's not what civilized societies do. in any event, these 3400 enemies of iranian tyranny deserve protection on humanitarian ground. the actions of every government and those in iraq who are putting up to the mullahs made it clear that these dissidents are potential targets of iranian mischief. the united states government which was responsible for disarming them as the responsibility to protect them. we heard from so many now about the impending visit of the iranian, the iraqi leader to the presidency of the united states. that was an interesting freudian slip if the president of the united states does not demand a change in the iraqi government's commitment to close the camp, his silence will be taken as acquiescence. and that is so dangerous, silent acquiescence. one excuse as all know offered by those who would not protect
the inmates is that they are members of the mek, which was once a decade and a half ago, designated the stately in my view by our government as a terrorist group. this was the first quote legal point listed by the iraqi government in its recent papers to the european communities go, the authorization has already been classified by the international community as a terrorist organization. the paper also refers to relations with neighboring countries which, of course, means iran, which is truly a terrorist nation and so regarded by all reasonable people. now, there are several legal, moral and practical reasons why this excuse of the mek being listed just doesn't work. festival even if it were true, and it's not, that the mek is a terrorist group, that designation would not deny the residents can't ashraf protection under international law.
certainly not all the residents, if any, can currently be deemed terrorists. they are disarmed. they are not engaged in any activities which make any legal definition of terrorism. none of them are combatants under international law, either lawful or unlawful combatants. secondly, the designation of mek as a terrorist group has always been highly questionable, and is more so today. even if an organization has once been deemed a terrorist group it does not mean that it retains that status forever. the law is clear. the stages must be repeatedly revisited, and there is no current evidence that would justify continuing in the status of a terrorist group. consider and compare -- [applause] consider and compare the palestine liberation organization asserted a terrorist group for many years,
blowing up civilian buses, murder and international athletes, hijacking our lives, burdens to become people of prayer and diplomats. but it no longer retains that formal status. though its leaders still encouraged terrorists by naming public squares after terrorists, by paying money to the families of terrorists, by allowing incitement to terrorism in government sponsored media and in many other ways. if the plo and the palestine authority no longer bear the stigma of terrorism. it follows, that mek should not be considered a terrorist group now, even if that designation was legally and factually warranted at some point in time, which is highly doubtful and he was almost certainly wrong. it is undoubtedly wrong now when the former head of the fbi and the former secretary of homeland security, who have seen documents that none of us have available to us, can certify
that there is no current threat from this organization that ought to cover a numerous amount of ground and would carry an enormous amount of weight. and the president of the united states, he secretary of state must consider the current evidence and must be listed this organization. in any event -- [applause] in any event, the thousand women, the many children, the elderly and others who are among the 3400 residents of camp ashraf are entitled to protection, regardless of this anachronistic and false designation still accorded to the mek. even if the iraqi, even the iraqi government seems to concede this point in theory, claiming to be getting with the camp residents quote, in accordance with the human rights principles of international law in shrine in the universal
declaration of human rights and the international content on civil and political rights. but in practice the current plan to close the camp are a death warrant directed against the residents because the mek was once designated as a terrorist group by the united states government. now, this stigma i predict is going to be removed, and it's going to be removed -- [applause] as soon as all the evidence is objectively considered. but it will be a victory at the residents are attacked and killed in the meantime. despite its claim to be complying with the law, the iraqi government is hindering, actively hindering u.n. agencies from trying to help the residents to relocate to safe places. and now they are trying a new
ploy. now they're trying to get some u.n. agencies and some u.n. leaders to support the policies that they are trying to implement at camp ashraf. that is cynicism at its worst and it cannot be allowed to succeed. the international committee has too often failed in preventing the mass murder of dissidents. and perceived enemies of genocidal regimes. just remember and consider the horrible tragedies of cambodia, of rwanda, of darfur, the former yugoslavia, armenia many, many decades ago, and of eastern europe 60 years ago. we said after the second world war, never again. but, you know, what happened to never again it's become again and again and again and again.
this time we must keep our collective humanitarian promise. the world is now on notice. it has no excuse. when the holocaust happened everybody said we didn't know. when the armenian genocide, we didn't know. when cambodian genocides were occurring, people were telling us it was propaganda. we didn't know. rwanda darfur, we didn't know. we know. [applause] we have control. we have been warned. [applause] the world -- the conscience of the world has been pricked. we know we are on notice. we must act now to protect these 3400 vulnerable individuals.
if we fail to do so, the blood of innocents will be on our collective hands. and there is specific lifesaving steps our government can take immediately. you've heard some of them from our distinguished speakers. we should appoint a special envoy to lead the efforts to peacefully resolve this matter. we should call publicly on the iraqi government to remove the december 31 deadline, and we should do that before maliki comes to united states. we should take the matter to the u.n. security council for buying the decision to prevent the human catastrophe, and we should do it immediately. the state department should act immediately to eliminate this horrible excuse that's being used by the iraqi regime, by removing mek from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. and the united states, we -- [applause]
-- with our beautiful statue of liberty standing in the harbor, the statue of liberty that welcomes my grandparents and my great grandparents, we must be prepared to accept a number of residents of camp ashraf on humanitarian grounds. ring is your poor, your huddled, those yearning to be free. who fits that definition better than the people today who are under the shadow of sentence of death? so there's no time to wait. a clock of death is taking. if not now, when? my dear friend who i know has been also active in this cause once said that the lesson he learned from the holocaust is always believed the threats of your enemies more than the promises of your friends. we must make that untrue. we, the american people, for all the reasons we have for today, most finally keep our promise.
[applause] we must do it and we must do it now. thank you very much. [applause] >> that was fantastic, really good.ñ >> i don't think ambassador robert joseph wants to follow that, but he's going to have to. professor alan dershowitz, what a transparent argument for all of those of both legal minds, but good consciences can follow. what a fantastic outline of what we are facing, and bring it back to the most essential element.
and thank you once again for those very powerful remarks. we have with us a distinguished diplomat and ambassador who has led the cause of protecting the world from the terror of nuclear weapons. he has been the united states special envoy for nuclear nonproliferation undersecretary for arms control and international security, and has worked his whole life to coordinate the prevention and deterrence and defending the united states and the rest of the world from weapons of mass destruction. he is here today to talk to us about the fact that not only have the mek been an indispensable help to his efforts in intelligence gathering on the nuclear program in iran, but he's here to talk
about why he's in solidarity with the threat of terrorism posed by iran, not only on the camp ashraf, but on all people of the world. let's get a great round of applause to ambassador robert joseph. [applause] >> well, thank you very much. and good afternoon. i tell you, it's a hard act to follow the professor that it would be a hard act to follow any of the speakers today, but that is my task. so first i'd like to thank our sponsors, for the opportunity to present to you today my thoughts on the iranian nuclear program. the iranian american community of northern california in association with other groups that help to promote a democratic and secular republic in iran has i believe a very important role to play and ultimately determining the
outcome of the nuclear nation. having worked for the past 10 years on trying to stop iran's committed quest for a nuclear weapons capability, at the white house, at the state department, and now out of government, i am convinced that until the current repressive regime in iran is replaced to the resistance of the iranian people, we will not permanently succeed in ending the nuclear program. that are of course and number of approaches that the nested and other countries are pursuing. economic sanctions through the united nations, even more sweeping financial measures under our own national loss, and covert activity such as the reported attack on the computers that operate iran's nuclear complex. in the future, and i will talk about this as well, there's also the possibility of the use of military force against the known nuclear facilities. but at the end of the day, while
all of these measures have and will likely to continue to slow down the nuclear program, and while buying time can be strategically important, they will not end the program. they will not persuade or compel the present leaders in iran to reverse course. only through internal political change can we achieve that outcome. so having already given you my bottom line let me back up and try to explain how i've come to this conclusion. i'll start with an overview of iran's nuclear program, highlighting one of the most disturbing aspects of the latest iaea report, which received worldwide attention from the media after its release last week. following that i will try to put the nuclear program in context. what does it mean for u.s. security? what does it mean for the security of the gulf region? why does iran want nuclear weapons, and how would such
weapons affect the regime's policies and ambitions? finally i'd like to talk about alternative policy options, including the substantial use of force. for each of these i will try to identify the strengths and weaknesses, the benefits, the cost and risk. so did begin let me just briefly summarize the iaea report, which is based on what the agency said is credible evidence gathered on the ground in iran as well as information from the united states. the report is rather technical so i will translate the funds into lay terms. on iran's enrichment activity, the report emphasizes continued progress in key areas, including operating more centrifuges than ever before and during the start of production as the previously secret facility, producing low-enriched uranium twice as fast as before the computer attacks in 2009 and 2010. and a q&a now a stockpile of
low-enriched uranium which is further enriched could provide enough material for four nuclear weapons. and tripling the production of enriched uranium at the 20% level that would shorten the time to reach weapons grade level with additional processing. while these assessments of enrichment are of concern, the most alarming judgments contained in the report do with what the agency describes as research development and testing activities that would be useful in designing a nuclear weapon. in other words, iran is working on the building blocks for making atomic bombs. the report does not complain that iran -- does not complain that iran has constructed a nuclear weapon or even that it has overcome all the technological hurdles that would be required. it does not speculate on how long it will take iran to be able to build a weapon, but what it does do for the very first
time it is laid out what it calls strong indicators, possible weapons development. for an agency as cautious as the nci eae is, that is a major step forward. these indicators include creating computer models of nuclear explosions and work involving neutron initiation, triggering systems and implosion explosions, the iaea also states that it has acquired documentation suggesting that iran has been provided, presumably to the a.q. khan network come with nuclear explosive designed information, and that it has worked on experiments with conventional explosives to compress metal into a mask suitable to initiate a chain reaction. finally, the report points to evidence that indicates iran has been pursuing a number of designs for a warhead to deliver a nuclear weapon, and specifically stating such a warhead on its longer-range
missile. unlike the 2007 u.s. intelligence estimate, that iran had stopped work on a nuclear weapon in 2003, the iaea found that significant work of the military dimension has been conducted since that time, including some work very recently. ambassador a minor, the agency's director joe has made public that the ie try to talk to iran about these issues which he terms serious concerns regarding possible that your dimensions. but that iran continued to conceal what it is done in this area. this concealment is consistent with a decade old pattern of and deception across both the nuclear program and iran's related diplomacy. what the report makes evident is that we no longer have the luxury of time on our site. since iran's program was outed in 2002, by the mek, tehran has
moved forward in a determined way to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. whether or not a final decision has been made to build nuclear weapons cannot be proved or disproved, but it is clear that iran is moving ahead with the technology used in producing atomic bombs, and will in the near future have the option available to it, if it so chooses. so why do we care, or why should we care about iran's development of a nuclear option? both president obama and his presidency, president bush had stated that unites states cannot and will not permit iran to acquire nuclear weapons. there are many reasons for this. let me mention just a few. a nuclear-armed iran could unfold to promote its ambitions and outside and region outside more aggressively, whether in afghanistan, iraq or the gold or beyond. this could take the form of support of terrorism or fomenting political unrest to
overthrow leaders supportive of the united states. this would threaten stability and the security of u.s. friends and allies in the vital region of interest. a nuclear-armed iran would be a direct threat to u.s. forces and allies in the gulf, as was to the greater middle east, europe and eventually to the united states itself. the likelihood of iran using military and as a means of force would ideally increase if tehran believed its nuclear capability protected it from retaliation. at a minimum iran would seek to use its possession of nuclear weapons as a powerful tool of intimidation and blackmail. a nuclear-armed iran could lead to the end of the nuclear nonproliferation regime as we have known it by lighting the fuse for further proliferation, by countries respond to what they would see as a great threat that must be deterred by their own possession of nuclear weapons. these countries could include saudi arabia, turkey, egypt and
others. and along with a nuclear armed israel, this is a scenario for not only regional, but global disaster. a nuclear-armed iran is at the nexus of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. pursuing nuclear weapons and actively supporting terrorism. if iran has nuclear weapons and fissile material the likelihood of their transfer to third parties with increased either by design or by diversion. and find a nuclear-armed iran would feel even more secure from for an outside interference, and more confident that it could act without concern of repercussions to repress its own people. those who are, in fact, the greatest threat to the regime's survival. in other words, if iran achieves its apparent goal of nuclear weapons, it's a true game changer. just imagine if it seems difficult today to deal with in current iranian regime, what
would it be like if those leaders had nuclear weapons? so what do we do to stop it? as i mentioned, and has all of you know, we have sought to apply economic and financial sanctions against regimes, especially individuals associate with the nuclear program, and entities such as the revolutionary guards. since 2006, there have been four u.n. security council resolutions that have imposed increasing cost penalties on iran for its activities. but these penalties have always been less than what the u.s. sought. they've always been negotiated down by russia and china who have been reluctant to impose harsh measures for political and commercial reasons. the united states, working with other willing countries in europe and in asia, have also added sanctions through national laws come. our congress has been and remains very supportive of these measures. and together, international and
national stations have reported had a significant impact on iran's government, and on its economy the president obama recently stated the sanctions were taking a severe toll on iran. the problem is causing economic pains for sanctions has not stopped the progress of the nuclear program, or the march to acquire a nuclear weapon. so again, what do we do? one course is to impose even more sanctions, something we are trying to do on the international level as we speak. however, as before, russia and china are saying no, at least for now, and this despite the release of the iaea report last week. so that leaves us with additional national sanctions, but even here there seems to be a self-imposed limit. as reflected in recent discussions regarding possible actions against the central bank of iran. after having raised the prospects of sanctions on the central bank, which is the principal conduit for iran's oil sales globally, u.s. officials
seemed to be moving away from such action, out of fear that it could be too disruptive economically if it rose energy prices at home. so that is apparently a prize that we are not willing to pay economically to compel iran on the nuclear side. as for covert action against the nuclear program there have been press reports of u.s. and israeli efforts to disrupt the enrichment program through computer attacks and other means of sabotage. but while these attempts have likely cost some operational disruption, like sanctions, they have not accomplished their goal. and the iaea report makes beckley. so we can do more sanctions, and presumably we can do more covert actions. and we certainly should. but given our expenses over the past five years, we should not i believe expect them to work, that is, to end the program. and time is running out. whether we have one year or two years, we simply can't beat confident that incremental policy of more of the same will be successful.
in fact one would have to conclude based on our experience to date that we will fail in our task if we don't take an alternative path. let me put it bluntly. we are at a critical juncture, and we are faced with very hard choices and huge risks. because we're now at this crossroads, we must consider the benefits, costs and risks of using force, not innovation or large-scale bombing of cities and industrial plants, but attacks to destroy known facilities, or at least the main no facilities of the program. no one wants to have to use force, but this is a challenge for which there are no easy or even good policy choices. naturally this is a very sensitive issue, and it should be. and i can already hear the choirs that we need to get more time for sanctions and covert activity. but as i said, my reading of the iaea report is that we're out of time. this is no longer a viable option.
of course, we can decide not to use force, and we can stick with the current policy. but if we do i think we must face up to the fact that we're likely accepting a nuclear-armed iran. this may be acceptable to some, and we are already hearing from a number of workers and out of government that instead of using force, we need to adopt a policy of deterring and containing a nuclear-armed iran, a policy i would argue that is fraught with risks. while the obama administration has stated that all options are on the table, it is also made clear that it does not want to use force. former secretary of defense bob gates said the use of force against iran would be, in his words, in saint. and i'm confident that almost every other country would prefer a diplomatic peaceful outcome. the profit is there is no reason to believe that the regime would ever abandon the nuclear program with one possible exception. that it believes that force would be used against it if this
was the case with libya, and this is the case with iran. for those who might be willing to use force, it would, as it should be, an act of last resort. in this context we need to consider likely costs and benefits if force is used it most likely not by the united states, but by israel. the country that proceeds weapons that proceeds weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the current regime as an existential threat to its very existence. but have no doubt it is your use force, the united states would be blind and would also be a target of retaliation. and the costs could be substantial. iran has many avenues to strike back or ballistic missiles and the use of terrorism worldwide, or through its proxies in iraq and afghanistan. it can also create economic and political disruptions and unrest. but there are limits to what iran can do, and what it is willing to risk. if we were to escalate further in response to their actions.
moreover, the program would not likely be ended by the use of force. as a sought after the 1982 strike against the reactor in iraq. instead the program would almost surely go further underground. but the use of force would likely buy time. one year, perhaps up to three years. the key question is whether and how that time could be used strategically to fundamentally change the political conditions in iran. some argue that if force is used, all iranians will rally around the regime as a nationalistic impulse. others challenge that conventional wisdom, noting that the limited use of force would not alter the deep animosity of many, if not most iranian stores that regime. i don't know the answer. so let me leave you with that question for you to answer. allow me to make just two concluding thoughts. the first very briefly as i said at the outset, is the only
sustainable solution to the iranian nuclear threat is the emergence of a free and democratic iran. and second, and this is more of a personal note, i was asked here today to talk to you about iran's nuclear program, and i hope my remarks have been informative, but i want to say that over the past few days, as i prepared my comments, and today as i have listened to the other speakers, i have learned a great deal about the mek, which i had known before only as a source, perhaps the best source of information on iran's nuclear program. and i can now say unequivocally that i am not only a supporter of the listing but also the other states that governor ridge and others on the panel have put forth. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, ambassador joseph.
we are very grateful to you and your leadership, and not only for our country but for all the world, as these nuclear weapons pose a threat to all humanity. and it's so, we are also grateful for your service, and also today to make such a transparent outline. doesn't it sound familiar? all of these occupations and denounced by the iranian regime on weapons of mass destruction, doesn't it sound familiar? violating international law over and over again with respect to weapons of mass destruction. and at the same time violating international law with respect to human rights. this is not a good group that's running iran.
they threaten international security with weapons of mass destruction, and the creation of a nuclear bomb. at the same time they threaten our very principles and human rights with their attacks against innocent, unarmed people. you said over and over again, that we do not need more of the same policies of acquiescence and appeasement. that is what's gotten us this far with very few results from the iranian regime, whether it's their suspension of pursuing weapons of mass destruction, or it's their suspension of their attacks on their own people, or the people of camp ashraf. this is a pattern. we've seen it over and over again. as alan dershowitz said.
so perhaps not it is a good segue to introduce an individual who spent his career at uncovering patterns of corruption and immorality. not only as richard ben-veniste been on the commission to investigate one of the greatest crimes against the united states, the 9/11 attacks, but he distinguished himself as the lead prosecutor on the watergate task force investigating corruption at the highest levels of government in our own country, and he has been passed with a job of investigating the historic record in world war ii towards germany and japan. ..
commission on terrorist acts against the united states, better known as the 9/11 commission, made a number of recommendations to congress and to the president as part of our final report. among the most significant from a security standpoint was our recommendation to maximize counterproliferation efforts targeting weapons of mass destruction. expanding the proliferation security initiative and supporting the cooperative threat reduction program. in another important recommendation, the commission called upon america to stand up for its values aggressively and define itself in the islamic world. both of those recommendations are central to my remarks today.
the arab spring movement has provided america with an opportunity to allow our values to define us in the middle east. for too long we have followed a simple and short-sighted goal of expediency in dealing with autocratic, repressive regimes rather than trusting that the principles upon which our nation was founded and on which it has flourished as a beacon for all freedom-loving peoples to see could, over time, replace the anti-democratic demagogues and dictators and regimes that have long ruled those countries. but let no one underestimate the long slog ahead. despite our natural enthusiasm for those in the world who throw
off the yoke of presentation, there is little reason to believe that democracy or even stability take root. this will be a turbulent and often discouraging term in my view, fraught with challenges to security as various factions vow for power -- vie for power, rather, in countries where tie rapts have ruled for -- tyrants have ruled for decades. armed conflict, riots and civil unrest will be fueled by political, civil, tribal, religious and criminal elements. while jihadists of various stripes will attempt to exploit the chaos for their own benefit. by the way, i commend to those who have not seen it the cogent testimony on this subject by
brian jenkins of the rand corporation earlier this month before the house armed services subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities. al-qaeda has quickly attempted to aline itself -- align itself with the new uprisings, interpreting events to suit its own narrative as defeats of u.s.-backed tie rapts like mubarak, gadhafi and ali saleh. at least they will be deprived of that argument when assad falls in syria and the mullahs are eventually turned out in iran. which brings us to the second topic of my remarks. a far more
that iran has the technology to prepare such fissile material to use in a weapon. that iran also is acquiring or has already acquired the specialized detonators and technology needed for a weapon. that iran may now be able to fully integrate those technologies into a bomb. that iran may be conducting simultaneous simulations of key aspects of nuclear weapons development. that new data indicate that iran is moving towards modeling weapons designs. that there now is further evidence that iran is developing neutron initiators needed to sustain a fissile reaction and produce high yields from a fissile weapon.
that iran seems to be actively developing nuclear missile warheads and that in a new development the iaea reports that iran may be preparing for future testing. the second recent development regarding iran, regarding and warranting reassessment of the situation is the alleged plot to assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador here in the united states under circumstances that would also involve the loss of american lives. obviously, i am not privy to classified intelligence on this subject, but it appears the plot was real. begging the question of how high up in the iranian regime
planning, support and authority was provided. was this, for example, a rogue operation sanctioned by a faction of the revolutionary guard, or was this a plot authorized by higher-ups in the regime? either way, a very disquieting indication of continued criminal proclivity by a would-be nuclear power. there is no disputing the regime's long history of profound disrespect for the norms of international law and human rights. its president, mahmoud ahmadinejad, half clown, half thug, denies the holocaust from one side of his mouth while pledging to wipe israel off the map from the other. at the same time, iranians
including ahmadinejad have engaged in apocalyptic, end-of-times rhetoric making reference to the return of the 12th imam and the like. what should we ask of our staunch ally, the state of israel? for a nation founded in part on the very painful lesson learned, never again, how much forbearance can we reasonably ask as iran moves toward the development of nuclear weapons and overtly threatens the very existence of israel? the prospect of a nuclear bully in the mideast willing to engage in criminal and reckless behavior is reflected in the
saudi ambassador assassination plot, talking up an apock limittal and perhaps suicidal end-of-times rhetoric resets the bevel of bellicosity on all sides. it may well be in ahmadinejad's short-term, parochial interests to spew the kind of rhetoric for which he has become infamous. but he and those who truly make the decisions in iran today, such as ayatollah ca menny, must be made to understand the danger of playing a half-court game in a full-court world. in my view, the only kind of sanctions that truly jeopardize the mullahs' regime will have a
chance of success in curbing iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. no option, including a military option, should be off the table. our allies must understand that iran should not be allowed to delay and prevaricate until it has achieved its quest for a fissile device. while iran does not now provide an existential threat to america, it could one day provide such to a small neighboring nation like israel. and there is no doubt that israel would respond to such an attack with a countervalue attack against iran. not just against itself military and nuclear facilities, but essentially destroying the country in its entirety.
it is in our interest, in the interest of our planet to avoid such a horrendous scenario by taking strong, purposeful action to curb the bellicosity and tamp down the ambitions of the iranian regimement -- regime. sanctions and boycotts of refined gasoline sold in europe accounting for significant hard currency should be employed. surely, french satellite transmissions relied upon by iran can be denied given president sarkozy's view that an iranian nuclear bomb is the single greatest threat to world security. certainly, the covert campaign of sabotage against iran's nuclear weapons development
program such as stuxnet and targeted violation can and should be -- violence can and should be ratcheted up. finally, the iranian banking system and be iran's ability to conduct international business can be targeted by a variety of methods at our disposal. the key in the use of harsh sanctions is to project to the iranian people who are certainly not our enemies that there are clear reasons for these sanctions. reasons that are entirely the result of their leader's threatening activities. these actions must bety traited to guard against resuscitating a failed revolution by inspiring a call to national unity. this will require skill, international cooperation and
strong determination. failure here is not an option. the obama administration has welcomed the iaea findings and has declaimed the hypocrisy and outright lies of the regime's continuing denials. in my view, we must support the administration's continuing efforts to ratchet up sanctions and building consensus while walking the difficult line created by the harsh economic circumstances that confront us all today and how those circumstances may be exacerbated by new sanctions. this process will require great skill and judgment. but in the end we must not waver from using the great power that
we possess to achieve the just ends we seek. thank you very much. [applause] >> general john keane is someone who throughout his life has worn the uniform of the o american soldier. when it comes to implementing policy whether that policy, as richard said, is the policy of expediency or the policy of principle, we've always been fortunate in our country to have people who richard talked about in the 9/11 commission, to have people willing to stand up for
american values aggressively. jack keane as a retired four-star general and vice chief of staff to the united states army, among his many duties and litany of accomplishments, i think we only need to name two. he's the recipient of the silver star and the bronze star for heroism under fire. this is a man who doesn't just talk the talk, but he walks the walk, and that's why it's so appropriate that we have him here today. please, give him a great round of applause and welcome him to the podium. [applause]
>> thank you. thank you very much for that warm reception. i know you may be getting a little weary and like to stand up and jump around a little bit. my sympathies to you. i'm going to be as brief as i possibly can, but let me associate my remarks with my distinguished colleagues here in terms of your issue, the challenges that you face and also how well they outlined the solutions. my contribution today is an attempt, in an attempt to be brief, is to focus on iran and united states policy. because if we can resolve that issue, many of the other problems in the middle east can be resolved to include the mek. the iranian bungled operation to use proxies to assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador to the united states and to purposely plan the operation in the united states is a stunning rebuke to
the obama administration's policy of negotiation and isolation with the iranians. i provided the remarks that you're about to hear about two weeks ago to the congress of the united states in a combined committee dealing with our issues with iran. indeed, republican and democratic administrations since 1980 have failed to deal effectively with the harsh reality that iran is our number one strategic enemy in the world. frankly, the iranians stated as much in 1980, that the united states was the enemy of the islamic revolution, and their intent was to drive the united states out of the region. therefore, they have been systematically killing us for over 30 years. in 1983 their proxies to hezbollah blew up the american embassy, the marine barracks in lebanon and the embassy annex the following year with a total
of almost 500 lives lost. we not only had no response to this tragedy, but we pulled our troops out of lebanon. in 1983 the iranian-backeddal daughter what extremist group blew up the united states embassy in kuwait and attacked a residential area killing and wounding over 80. in 1984 the cia station chief in lebanon, william buckley, was captured and eventually killed which was the beginning of an iranian-backed campaign to take high profile hostages over a ten-year period. this led to the poorly-conceived and ill-fated operation by the reagan administration to exchange arms for hostages with the iranians. in 1985 twa flight 847 was seized while enroute to rome, was forced to land in beirut which led to the killing of a u.s. navy diver and dumping his
body on the tarmac. eventually, the airplane hostages were released as the israelis released hundreds of extremist terrorists from israeli jails. in 1996 the u.s. air force barracks in saudi arabia was blown up by the iranian-backed hezbollah killing 19 and wounding almost 400. again, although our intelligence apparatus identified the culprits as iranian-backed hezbollah, we had no response, and we eventually shut down the united states military bases in saudi arabia. since 2003 in iraq the iranians have provided rockets, mortars, enhanced improved explosive devices and money to the shia militia who are directly involved in killing u.s. troops in iraq. moreover, the iraq shia militia were trained by the iranian special operations force, the
quds force, at training bases in iran. while the iranians were defeated politically and militarily in iraq in 2009, the president's recent decision to withdraw all troops from iraq puts our hard-fought gains in iraq at risk and plays into the hands of the iranians. maliki as we speak is undermining his political opponents. he's driving key sunni leaders out of the military, and he's consolidating his power base. the attack on camp ashraf is part of this strategy with the iranian fingerprints all over it. similarly, the iranians are supporting the taliban in afghanistan with money and ammunition. the action arm for iran's state sponsorship of terrorism outside of their borders is led by general california seem sole
manny who has been in charge for over 15 years. the general has no military or political boss. of he answers to only one person, the supreme leader in iran, khomeini. we must conclude that for the general to plan an operation inside the united states that would result in americans being killed, surely the supreme leader at a minimum approved that operation and may, in fact, have directed it. why did they want to do such a thing? well, simply because they can. not only that, they believe that we are weak, and they would, frankly, get away with it. moreover, we must ask ourselves has united states policy with respect to iran been working? we appear to have a policy of
rhetorical condemnation when the iranians engage in the behavior adverse to the united states' interests. we also engage in negotiations which are on again/off again while the iranians continue to pursue nuclear weapons. we have imposed some limited sanctions on the iranians, an attempt to isolate them in the world which as best we can tell also has had no impact on their pursuit of nuclear weapons or their sponsorship of terrorism. we also must admit that the iranians are not without their own challenges. having two fledgling democracies on their borders in iraq and afghanistan is a huge geopolitical threat to this tyrannical control of their own population and preservation of the regime. the arab spring is a repudiation of radical islam. indeed, the people in the streets are seeking political reform, social justice and economic opportunities which are the mainstream of western
democracies. certainly, iranians are attempting to take advantages of the opportunities the social unrest of the arab spring into slides, but no one is demonstrating on behalf of their flawed values. losing the state sponsored terrorist like gadhafi is a setback as is the upheaval in syria, their number one ally in the region. all that said, it is time to review our strategy for iran against the harsh reality that despite our rhetoric, attempts to negotiate, isolate and sanction, the fact is the iranians continue to use their proxies against united states interests and continue to pursue nuclear weapons. therefore, one must conclude the obvious, that our policy has failed and it has failed miserably. what can we do? first and foremost, begin to treat iran as the strategic enemy they truly are and that
our strategic objective is regime change. therefore, use all the elements of national power against them. and as such, develop a strategic, competitive framework that counters every major interest the iranian regime engages in. and, yes, of course, seek international support and cooperation, but regardless of the amount of support we receive from the ic, we must act. for example, just to name a few, seize the financial interests which are outside of iran. as many of you know, when khomeini and the mullahs took over iran, they seized the shah's business interests and are actually operating them. they are multibillionaires as a result of it. we know where those interests are, and we can seize them as we
had, as we have successfully done with the al-qaeda's financial interests around the world. limit their ability to trade by denying their ships entry to ports around the world. stop the refining operation that others in the world are assisting the iranians with. limit the ability of their central bank to operate effectively. we have the number one cyber attack capability in the world, and nobody is close to it. conduct offensive cyber campaign against selected military and economic interests inside of iran. conduct covert operations led by the central intelligence agency in cooperation with other agencies to target the quds force and their proxies. and certainly, to influence the pursuit of nuclear weapons. provide money, information and encouragement to the disdepartment leaders --
dissident leaders inside iran to use their population to put pressure on the regime. what a lost opportunity we had in the summer of 2009, the persian spring, when we did not speak up and support what the people of iran were doing. in my view, these measures have some chance to compel a behavior change or possibly even the regime the fall. to fall. because you want these sanctions and targeted operations to have a major impact on the people. this much i do know, if we continue the half measures of the past, the iranians will continue to kill us, will continue to sponsor terrorism and use their proxies against our interests and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons. the next nightmare for the world is around the corner, an unchecked iran with nuclear weapons. this will lead to a nuclear arms
race in the middle east, and as my negative defense policy -- fellow defense policy board member, henry kissinger, has stated publicly: it is inevitable there will be a nuclear exchange in the middle east, and the world will change forever. this is unacceptable. and of all of the measures that i mentioned, and they are just a few of what can be done, if all of those measures fail to stop the iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons, then we must attack that capability militarily to shut it down and delay this program and buy time for the iranian people. what other choice do we have? what other choice do we have? to attempt to contain a nuclear iran? i think not. that risk is far too great for the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, general. [applause]
thank you very much, general. so as we conclude today as i introduce our final speaker, what should we do, the general says. when we listen to our final speaker, we have someone who has worked to develop u.s. policy with respect to another pariah internationally, and that's north korea. so christian whiton is somebody at the u.s. department of state who led the efforts to develop a strategic review of u.s. foreign policy as it related to north korea, also who was pursuing nuclear weapons. and so today he gives us a very unique perspective in how and what lessons we can take from
the way we treated north korea whether we pursue policies of negotiation which was done, isolation or sanction and how those policies shall be pursued with the number one strategic enemy of the united states, as the general said, iran. so now to give us this commentary is christian whiteton. former u.s. policy director at the department of state. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. well, thank you, congressman kennedy, for that introduction, and it's an honor to be here with such distinguished country to talk about one of the most severe threats facing the united states which is, of course, the government of iran and its proxies and the work they do throughout the world. it's certainly been a busy couple of months for the tyrants who govern iran.
as we've heard from a number of people and as you are all too familiar, you know, we see what iran is doing in regard to camp ashraf with the mek. you also know and we heard from ambassador joseph and others that last week the iaea reported that tehran has continued to work on the nuclear weapons program. and their findings are unambiguous. it reflected, also, this latest report, a dramatic turn for the iaea after which no one can credibly say that tehran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. and as mr. ben-veniste and general keane reminded us, a month earlier the u.s. disclosed a plot by iranian agents to kill the saudi ambassador right here in washington, d.c., a plot involving hiring operatives of mexican drug cartels to strike us here and a plot that would have possibly included the collateral deaths of congressmen and other notables. and also general keane walked us
through a litany of other egregious offenses against americans by this government. these activities probably come as no surprise to those of you who are gathered here. more than 30 years after the revolution that opened its path to power, the tehran regime continues to use terrorists as instruments of national policy. it's been tireless in seeking to expand its influence around the world, and it continues to be the primary adversary of freedom in the middle east. tehran has also been particularly effective at waging political warfare, and that's where i want to focus my remarks based, as the congressman said, on lessons learned from north korea and other places where we've sought to help those who are seeking freedom. political warfare can be defined as the spectrum of national power tools that fall between diplomacy and outright war. the idea is to get a political outcome, to get what a government wants to achieve somewhere beyond its borders and do so by using means more effective than just talking as
diplomats may do, but certainly less costly than going to war. it can involve financial, cultural, military-related, intelligence-related, information-related activities. tehran understands this. it understands political warfare. it has been using this more or less since the inception of the islamic republic. and as the main nation-state progenitor of the islamist ideology, the iranian government is interested in the export of islamism, but also in supporting governments that are friendly to its many nefarious ambitions abroad. i think it's an important element to grasp for policymakers in the united states, by necessity analysts here do follow -- focus most of their attention on the iranian nuclear program. it's, obviously, an issue of extreme concern, and it's a national security challenge for which neither the current administration in the white house, nor its predecessor has developed adequate policy. but i believe from the perspective of u.s. security the greatest likely threat is,
actually, not a possible iranian first strike or the proliferation of a nuclear weapon to a terrorist network, either of which would be suicidal to the regime in tehran. but, frankly, a greater threat or a more significant one is in the added impunity that a nuclear arsenal would provide the regime to engage in subversion and the other activities at which its proven itself so adept. so, unfortunately, for us a nuclear breakout would be, i think, a windfall for the tehran regime at the very time when it should otherwise be feeling particularly insecure about its future. outside of iran, arab spring shows us the limited appeal of clerical rule as practiced inside the islamic republic and has again exposed the lie that residents of the middle east do not desire freedom and accountable government in the same way we do in the west. it should again signal policymakers in washington and allied capitals that in the middle east there's not just a choice between dictators and
strongmen on the one hand and islamists on the other. in fact, there are a wide body, there is a wide body of reformers, liberals, moderates, call them what you like, that wants to constitute -- or that constitutes a more liberal alternative to what we have seen prevail in so many parts of the middle east these last several decades. and then, of course, there's the movement inside iran which you know represents a new and broader level of intensity in the opposition to the incumbent government. together these constitute building blocks that could roll back tehran's reach and promote the decay of the regime from within. history has essentially now provided us with an opportunity to take friends away from the iranian regime and expedite its decline right at home. so it would be sadly ironic if at the time when the iranian government should be fearing for its longevity, a nuclear breakout were to give the regime is a new lease on life and allow it to do more of what it already does with added impunity. we have seen a preview already.
tehran is quite adept at political warfare and, of course, you all know this. tehran and its proxies, its allies have managed to use political transitions in what some saw as the dawning of democracy in various places to undermine democracy. recent examples include governments compromised by hezbollah in lebanon, hamas in the pal stint onauthority and by the sadr block in iraq. in each case tehran has done yeoman's work in using democracy to poison democracy, and that won't be the end, especially if a nuclear iran intimidates our allies and perceives a new lease on life at home. we should expect tehran to attempt repeat performances a other political transformations occur. seminal elections are on the horizon in egypt and libya, they just occurred, in tunisia. the battle between reformers and islamists is taking place and is likely to be the major political feature of this decade. it's my suggestion, of course,
that free nations fight back. we should counter political warfare with political warfare. we should push back on tehran using peaceful means if possible in order to advance our national interests in expediting the internal decay of the regime as well as helping those in iran who share our values and our desire for a civilized order. this is something at which the u.s. used to excel. during the cold war, we helped indigenous political movements and indigenous voices appeal to their countrymen to defend freedom or to free nations being held captive. the bad guys were helping their friends, so american presidents of both parties thought it was important that we help ours. perhaps the most active in this were the democratic president at the beginning of the cold war, harry truman, and the republican president near the end, ronald reagan. so what would be, excuse me, peaceful political warfare against the current iranian regime? some features, we've heard some
very good ideas, but some features could include, first, helping dissidents inside iran and free iranians outside of iran such as yourselves with communications tools and other resources critical to any political movement. we can also link them with others who have dealt with political organization and repressive situations before, especially those who did so in the eastern bloc behind the iron curtain in the 1970s and '80s. secondly, we could apply stronger financial actions against banks and other companies that do business with the regime, including the likely fatal blow of fencing the banks off from dollar-denominated transactions. actions like this put a major crimp on north korea's money operations in the last decade, and unfortunately, they were turned off. but extremely effective while they existed. third, we could make the disruption of telecommunications work for those who are actually seeking freedom rather than those who are working against it. it's almost certain, as general
keane alluded, that tehran has employed cyber warfare against us including assaults on tools like twitter. the free world could return the favor by identifying and empowering the friendlies who can turn activities like this back on the regime especially at moments of democratic opportunity when political turbulence erupts. fourth, let's take similar non-violent steps to help the syrian operation in the close coordination with our turkish and jordanian allies who have been very good on this. a free syria would deny iran with its best ally and deeply impair its communications with hezbollah. fifth and last, while the main point of political warfare is that it's nonviolent, it nonetheless is either augmented or undermined by military posturing. tehran is undoubtedly pleased that u.s. forces will depart neighboring iraq by the end of the year. we should look for ways to offset this loss of capability so that tehran is no better off. i should note in closing that we lack many of the capabilities to
do what i have described today. tool like the u.s. information agency are long gone, our intelligence agencies are long out of the business of concerning themselves with foreign political outcomes or directly influencing those outcomes. the cia seems to be on its way to becoming a secondary force, and our taxpayer-funded instrumentalities originally meant to support liberal ideas in governance like the national endowment for democracy do precious little today to support disdepartments like those working for freedom inside iran. but especially the efforts of the current and the past u.s. administration to talk iran out of its nuclear program founder, amid the inspiring demand for freedom on display across the middle east, we have an opportunity to reconsider our approach and improve our policy. just as we have the opportunity now to reconsider our policy toward the mek and camp ashraf. as winston churchill once reportedly remarked, quote: americans can always be counted
on to do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities. so now i'd say is the time for us to do the right thing on iran policy and on camp ashraf. so with that, i thank you very much. thank you for having me today. [applause] >> thanks, christian. thank you all once again for being here today. perhaps it's time for us to review a few of the things that we've heard today and recommit ourselves to changing our response. nouri al-maliki, the head of the iraqi government, is coming to the united states on december 12th. he is under investigation for war crimes.
he has disavowed the united nations law that says that he must allow them to do their job in order to make sure that those who are at camp ashraf can be processed as refugees and resettled. the message today has been clear: the united nations policy of relocation and dispersal in iraq of those residents of camp ashraf is tantamount to a death warrant. [applause] so before nouri al-maliki can come to this country, he must make clear that the deadline for
camp ashraf should be rejected, and the u.n. should be allowed to do their job. [applause] that he makes sure that not only are those residents treated with dignity and respect, but honored the international law that applies to them. the other message today is what culpability the united states of america has in all of this. and as we've heard from not only generals, but former u.s. secretaries and leaders of both military and public policy in our country states so clearly, and that is u.s. credibility is also on the line here. it's not simply important that
nouri al-maliki honor international law, but it's important that the united states which has been on the side of human rights and justice around the world on so many occasions continue to stand up for its principles. and also to stand against those that threaten world peace. like the mullahs in the tehran. this december 12th is a moment for the united states to set clear for the rest of the world where it stands on iran's proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and its terrorism throughout the world and its terrorism of the people of camp ashraf. through its proxy, nouri al-maliki. time is running out. the time for talking over. the time for action is now. [applause] so what do we owe these residents of camp ashraf? we, first of all, owe them our thanks for being part of an organization that signaled a warning that iran was once again constituting a campaign to construct a nuclear bomb. they are our friends.
they are the friends of the world. for what they have done, providing us with the necessary intelligence. [applause] and as our friends not only should the united states appoint a special envoy to make sure that they are resettled if resettled they must be around the world in friendly countries, but those countries ought to include our own country. [applause] [applause] >> they are not only witnesses to the crimes of tehran and ultimately could be witnesses in
the an actual international criminal court tribunal of the leaders of iran, but so they are important to all human beings who care about the respect and dignity of human rights. we ought to be doing everything we can to protect those who have been there to protect us by warning us, by being there to testify against our mortal enemies, the iranian regime. this should not even be a close call for the department of state. this is the time for action. this is the time for the united states to stand up for what it stands for in justice and human rights and the protection of liberties for all peoples no matter where they may live. and so i want to thank all of you. [applause]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> here's a quick look at our live programming across the c-span networks today. coming up on c-span, it's the former director of national intelligence, retired admiral dennis blair. he'll talk about potential defense budget cuts. you can see that live at 12:15 eastern, again on c-span. here on c-span2, the u.s. senate gavels in the for business at 1 p.m. eastern. more work expected on fiscal
year 2012 defense programs. a judicial nomination also will be considered around five with a roll call vote about half an hour later. you can see the senate live right here, as always, on c-span2. and on c-span3 it's the ranking member of the house financial services committee. congressman barney frank, reports indicating he will announce that he is not running for re-election next year. we'll have that for you live at 1 p.m. eastern. >> by the phone calls that we get, by the e-mails that we get, by the replies to our text messages that we get, by the increased participation that we've seen on our programs, we know we're being successful. >> "the communicators" continues its look at the u.s. government-sponsored broadcasts to other countries tonight with carlos garcia-perez, director of the office of cuba broadcasting which oversees radio and tv marcy. >> we've done 23 focus groups since i've been at the martsi, and i've been there a year and a
week. and what we found out is that people in cuba really look for -- they want news. they definitely want news. and when they seek news, relevant to the focus groups, they mention the martis. >> "the communicators" tonight at 8 on c-span2. >> earlier this month lord justice brian leveson began hearings on phone hacking and more broadly, the culture, practices and ethics of the british media. this portion of the hearing focuses on the victims of alleged phone hacking. earlier this year british prime minister david ram con appointed lord justice leveson to oversee a committee examining the relationship between the press and the police. that committee will make recommendations on the future of governance. this is just under two and a half hours. >> yes, mr. kaplan. >> before you begin to hear the evidence of those i think who have been termed the core participants, victims, may i
just say, um, a few words. um, we do think it is important, um, that those who are here and those who will watch the proceedings clearly understand the procedure which the inquiry has laid down as being appropriate, um, for this evidence under the inquiries act. we, of course, as have the other core participants, have seen the witness statements of those who are going to be called this week and next week, and it is right to say that in some of them there is varying degrees of criticism of sections of the press and, on occasion, of individual journalists. and, of course, that is why they are here to give evidence to you. what i'm about to say very briefly, may i say that i am not including in this, um, the dowler family or the mccann family in anyceps. but we do -- in any sense. but we do believe that where
criticism is made especially of individuals and if -- it is our belief that that criticism is incorrect or what are whatever reason false, that common fairness requires that we or any other core participant who are affected ought to be able to put questions to that witness in order to put the record straight or at the very least to put the other side. so that everybody understands, however, the procedure that the the inquiry is following and so far as these witnesses are concerned, um, it is -- and this is the procedure that, um, the inquiry has required -- we should put questions to, um, inquiry counsel, mr. jay, who will then add his discretion -- at his discretion put those questions if he thinks they're appropriate to the witness on our behalf. and i have no doubt at all that mr. jay will do a better job than i would. but i do not want to hide what
is an important concern, and that is that reputational criticism can be made by these witnesses in what is a televised situation without any opportunity for the object of that criticism to respond directly to questions from the lawyers representing the core participants affected. and so, therefore, can i just say two things, please? firstly, um, and i understand your reluctance to entertain such an application, but if it becomes necessary to correct a matter as a matter of fairness, and i'm sure mr. jay will, um, cover -- i hope -- all that we require, but if it becomes necessary, then i hope you would entertain an application under rule 10, subparagraph 4 provided we notify you of the questions that we would wish to put to a witness. and i understand that that would be a position of last resort.
secondly, to make it clear so far as possible we will file where necessary to obviate the need for that evidence with the inquiry to correct any matter which we perceive to be important and which needs to be corrected. and just as one illustration of that we will, for example, file evidence, and can you'll hear this when mr. grant gives evidence concerning the way in which daily mail journalists covered the announcement of the birth of his daughter, we will, um, file evidence showing what we say the daily mail journalists did and explain exactly what happened. and that's no disrespect to mr. grant who's here, morning. it is simply that we wish assist the inquiry in explaining what happened as an illustration, and i hope it'll be of assistance to you and possibly even mr. grant. >> with yes.
well, the position of the inquiry is comparatively clear. it's, it is abundantly clear based upon the approach that sir michael moore adopted in northern ireland that it is unusual to permit cross-examination outside the inquiry team, and the challenge to that decision at common law failed in northern ireland, i think. >> but in certain respects. so if i may just say, of course, there is an overriding duty of fairness under section 17 of the act, and the rule, rule 10.4, do perfect an application by a -- >> absolutely. i understand that. the other important feature is to note that although you're at absolute liberty to file whatever evidence you feel is
appropriate and i will want to be balanced and fair, what is under investigation this morning and, indeed, throughout the inquiry is the conduct and practice of the press. not the conduct and practice of any of the witnesses who are giving evidence. >> i quite understand that. and i hope, i'm sure we all hope that the evidence will be limited so far as possible to deal with the general issues. >> yes. >> simply to deal with any reputational criticism that may arise, that's all. >> i understand. this is called a right of reply which is one of the topics about which some of those who criticize the press complain. that's unfair, mr. kaplan, at this stage of the morning, but let's just see if we can't find the right balance. thank you very much. i've understood the point.
right. >> therefore, our first witnesses who are, um, the dowlers, please. [background sounds] [inaudible conversations] >> i swir bilal mighty god that the evidence i shall give shall the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> please, sit down. if at any stage you need a break, don't hesitate to say so. before we start can i thank you both for being prepared to come
to the inquiry. you've done so voluntarily, and i'm very conscious that it's a strain. i can only sympathize to both of you for the appalling losses that you, that you've suffered and the traumas that you've undergone over many years. so i'm very appreciative to both of you for being prepared to expose yourself to assist me in the worm that i've got -- in the work that i've got to do, so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and you are, respectively, bob and mary dowler. may i ask you, please, to confirm the witness statement which has been signed on the 3rd of november? there's a statement of truth at the end of that statement. do you confirm that you viewed that statement? >> yes. >> yes. >> now --
[inaudible] has got one or two questions for you, and then i will be back. >> with your permission, can i just ask a few introductory questions? good morning, mr. and mrs. dowler. i know you may be a little nest, i know your experience the last time you ghei evidence was a difficult one, so i'm not going to ask you detailed questions about your statement, mr. jay will do that in a minute, but can i begin by asking you, we all know that it was the revelation publicly in july of this year that millie's phone had been hacked into by people acting on behalf of the "news of the world" which led to the setting up of this inquiry. can i ask you how you feel about that? >> i'll answer this one. i think the, the gravity of what happened needs to be investigated there's a much bigger picture, obviously, but i think given that we learned about those hacking revelations just before the trial of the murder of our daughter, um, it
was extremely important that we understood and people understand exactly what we're talking in terms of these practices to uncover this information from the hacking situation. >> and prior to you discovering about millie's phone, did you read stories about other people including well-known people whose phones had also been hacked into? >> yes. we'd, obviously, been aware of si yen that -- zien that miller, and also gordon taylor. people in the media and who were very much aware that certainly from a celebrity awareness viewpoint that was going to be an issue. but, of course, not realizing until we were informed about hacking in our situation that it spread much wider than just celebrity. >> and how did you feel about the fact that there were other people whose phones had also been hacked? what impact, if anything, did that have on your case?
>> well, fundamentally everybody's entitle today a degree of privacy in their private life. and it's a deep concern that, you know, our private life became public. but i think also the other people who are in the public eye, their private life became public as well. >> we know that in time you instructed mark lewis, the solicitor. can you just explain how you came to instruct mr. lewis? >> well, it was during the trial, um, just before the trial we'd found out about, um, millie's phone being hacked. when we were given that information, it was like terribly difficult to process it because what do you do with that information when it's in your mind? and i was worried about the sort of forthcoming trial, but also aware of what had happened with sienna miller and things and thinking we ought to get some representation. but i was frightened of doing that because we didn't have any
money for that. so i didn't quite know how we were going to do that. um, then i found mark lewis on the internet. [laughter] and left a message on his phone, and he phoned straight back and said, please, come and see me. >> and what was your aim, what was your objective in going to see mr. lewis? >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> i think very much just to be in a position to respond to what would possibly become quite a public situation. how would we deal with that. because we'd been given that information but no advice as to what to do with it, but recognizing, of course, that that, i suppose to use his words, quite dynamite information to suddenly be aware of and realizing as has come to pass that when made public suddenly, it got very, very, very excited and very, yes, motivated about the whole situation.
so -- >> can i ask you just a question about your legal representation? did you have the money to pay for legal advice? >> no, we didn't. >> and so how were you able to pursue a complaint against news international? >> when we went to see mark which, um, i have to say it was a really difficult thing to do because it was during the trial, and it was like we've got to do this, bob, because we need someone to represent us. and literally dragged ourselves along to that meeting, and he said you don't need to worry about the money, sally, i will represent you come what may. and then, um, actually with regard to -- we were able to use the cfa agreement, um, otherwise we wouldn't have been able to proceed. >> and can i finally ask you this, we know that the "news of the world" settled your claim in july of this year, and that you heard my opening submissions, and you heard the opening submissions of the other media representatives.
what, if anything, would you like to say to news international now? >> well, i think given the gravity of what became public domain knowledge about what had happened about our phone hacking situation and the circumstances under which it took place, um, one would sincerely hope that news international and other media organizations would sincerely look very carefully at how they procure, how they obtain information about stories because, obviously, the ramifications are far greater than just an obvious story in the press. >> and i think, um, our daughter gemma said to mr. murdoch when we met him, use this as an opportunity to put things right in the future and to have some decent standards and, um, adhere to them. >> thank you very much. if you just wait there, mr. jay will have some further questions. >> it's, obviously, fitting that
you should be at the inquiry first, witnesses. i guess i'll ask you, first of all, to deal with paragraph seven of your witness statement. this is the private talk which occur inside may of 2002. do you follow me? >> yes. >> can i ask you, please, to tell us about that in your own words? you say it wasn't a formally organized walk. >> no. >> what was its purpose, please? >> well, it was about, it was seven weeks after millie had gone missing, so a lot of the sort of initial media hype, um, had died down a little bit, and it was a thursday, and that was the day that she'd gone missing. and it was quite a sunny afternoon, and can she would have come home about 4:00. and i remember calling bob and thinking, actually, he'd gone up to london on that day into the office, and i said to him, why don't you come back to walton,
and then i'll meet you there, and we'll do that walk back because so many questions were just buzzing around in your head. why didn't anyone see her, etc., etc. and it was a very last minute arrangement. so it was maybe an hour or two before, um, but i phoned bob and said, look, i want to do this. i'm going to meet you at the station, and we'll walk back together. >> yes. >> previously, there had been a lot of press in that station, but now it had calmed down a bit, and when we actually got there, there was no one there. it was empty. >> yes. >> so, um, simply one of the police officers was working with, one of -- [inaudible] dropped me off to station. i met bob, and then we just, basically, quietly retraced her steps, and no one was really around, so it was very much like the day she'd actually gone missing. and we put out missing leaflets
with her photograph and a telephone number on, and that number had been changed. and i was checking the posters to see if number, if the right poster was up. and as i walked along, i was touching the posters. and we walked back to our house which is maybe three-quarters of a mile, something like that. and that was on the thursday. and then on the sunday that photograph appeared in the news of the world, and i can remember seeing it, and i was really cross because we didn't see anyone. they'd, obviously, taken the picture with some sort of telephoto lens, how on earth did they know we were doing that walk on that day? and it just felt like such an intrusion into a really, really private grief moment. >> yeah. it goes without saying you were completely unaware at the time that people were watching you. >> yes, absolutely. >> we have the article.
i'm not going to ask that it be put on the screen, but -- [inaudible] to your witness statement. we can draw our own inferences as to where the photographer must have been been, some distance, of course, in front of you. >> yes. i don't know where, where he would have been to take those pictures. maybe in a parked car down -- [inaudible] somewhere, i don't know. >> i think you see from the picture that we're, basically, just walking along, completely immersed in the moment is the only phrase, i suppose, i'd use. and just sally suddenly saw the poster and decided to check it. >> yes. we see on the second page -- [inaudible] for what it's worth. >> yes.
>> did you make any complaint about this beyond telephoning the police family liaison officer? >> no. no, i just phoned, um, did phone alice on that day and have a little bit of a rant. >> yes. [laughter] >> and how did they get this picture. but in the scheme of things at the time more importantly was the fact that millie was missing. >> yes, of course. >> and i think that was more mind consuming. >> it wouldn't have entered your mind to -- [inaudible] >> um, not at that time, no. >> and we'd agreed that we would do all our press communication through the press office for obvious reasons anyway. >> thank you. now, in paragraph ten of your statement, it may be mr. dowler
that deals with this, you referred to situations when you were doorstepped by journalists and photographers. can you tell us a little bit more about that, please? >> well, certainly it became quite a regular event for people to knock on the door, and we'd established that we wouldn't do any interviews, we'd actually only do everything through the police press office for the simple reason of not wanting to create any media war between a particular publication having an access that they might consider, say, um, you know, exclusive. but certainly it was polite, and i think at the end of the day our response was all the the same, we won't do, and even recently. we've been doorstepped at times as well. but i think the thing that was quite difficult on our own property, i was out the front, probably putting something in
our recycling bin or something, and suddenly this person just popped from behind the hedge and approached me, and it was just the moment -- i remember it specifically because it was the time the head of the investigation of the police team was changed. and he immediately said to me, he said what do you think of the investigation being changed? and, i mean, really it was a sort of, well, what possibly am i going to say? unfortunately, i had the foresight to think i'm not going to say anything. to say i've got no comment, and i think, i think he might have introduced which media he was from, but i think something appeared in the paper probably the next day saying, you know, mr. dowler had no comment or something to that effect. for the simple reason that, obviously, you know, as we said, just to try and avoid the specifics of once we engage in one question, then there's the next question. and then you're engaged in a discussion. and that, i guess, becomes an interview, doesn't it? >> yes. >> yeah.
i think every time we went out the front door, you had to slightly be on guard because someone might be there, and they would come up to grow when you're least -- come up to you when you're least expecting it, so as you're lifting out of the car or something, and they'll fire a question at you without introducing themselves, and you had to train yourself not to answer. >> yes. maybe you feel the pressure to abstain from that sort of tactic altogether -- [inaudible] is that what you feel? >> well, i think it's quite concerning because i think however polite people are, at the end of the day you really are afraid to open your front door because you're faced with a question. >> yes. >> and however you respond to that question might then lead to a headline of one line or two, and that's, obviously, difficult to deal with. so i think -- but we've just, we've always tried to be polite and courteous and to leave it at
that. >> of course, i have to ask you next about milly's phone and the voicemail interception. you deal with this in paragraphs 13-15 of the written statement. first of all, in the trying to fix this in to the criminology, you think this must have been in april or may of 2002, is that correct? >> yes, it was quite soon after she'd gone missing because -- >> yes. >> -- um, where she actually was abducted was opposite this building called the verify building down by walton station. >> right. >> and there was cc-tv cameras on the bird's eye building, so everything really focused around the cc-tv cameras. so we were asked to go up and have a look at some of the cc-tv to see if we thought someone on
it was milly. >> yes. >> and do you want me to tell you about what happened? >> yes. particularly -- first of all, you tell us that you were phoning in to milly's voicemail -- >> yes. >> -- quite regularly. >> yes. >> to see whether there was anything else. >> yeah. of course, all the time we would -- at first we were able to leave messages, and then her voicemail became full. >> yes. >> and then you rang, and you just got the recorded, um, "we are unable to -- >> right.. >> -- leave messages at the moment." so i was used to hearing that. so we'd gone up to the bird's eye building to look at the cc-tv. and we were sitting downstairs, and i rang her phone, and it clicked through onto her voicemail, so i heard her voice. ..
and, yeah, i can only remember him telling us they put some credit on her phone. >> and when you told them you manage to get to the voicemail message -- >> yes. >> did that excite any particular reaction from the police? >> i can't really remember that. spent i think one of the, it's unfortunate nine years ago hard for us to remember the details. >> whether it had an impact on the investigation. >> something for them, isn't it, because at the end of the day. >> and then much later, this was shortly before the criminal side, you learned from the leak that the voicemail had been accessed by the "news of the world"? >> right.
>> well, certainly by mr. mulcaire, specifically. that's what we were told. >> and what was your immediate reaction to that piece of news? >> well, we got a call from -- to say, met the police, wanted to see us, and to tell us they knew what it was about. and as soon as i was told it was about phone hacking, literally i didn't sleep for about three nights because you replay everything in your mind, and just thinking, oh, that makes sense now, that makes sense, yes. then we went along to the meeting, and i said, about this instant, in the -- also about walking back from the station where the two things that at the time i thought this is odd.
something odd is going on. >> in your mind you made the immediate connection with the diary and the voicemail that you told us about come and also possible connection with the private walk? >> yes. >> i think the only thing to remember, of course is the walk had nothing to do with milly's phone. that could have only come from -- >> that was, or our own mobile phone. >> and we know for obvious reasons, namely, the facts of the criminal trial this was information you could not share more widely in till the trial had concluded. and we also know that the data the revolution set i think also was july of this year, to the chronology. may i ask you about more, some
wider questions? you refer to the press being a double edged sword. it's obvious i suppose, you have to engage to some extent in order -- on the other hand, it was private. is there anything else you would like to tell the inquiry about, the double-edged nature of what you might have to do at that time? >> well, i think in essence with that situation, you have to remember we were really, really desperate for some information about milly. and the press were in a position to be of help. and they did get the message out that she was missing and lots of information came in to the police headquarters.
on the other hand, being asked questions and being doorstep and everything else associated with it, and all those letters that you get requesting books, film, interviews. >> i think the point i want to make just that is i followed the media over the years quietly more than sally does, and i certainly recognize that it's very important we would try to be as consistent as we could when dealing with immediate, and not to actually get anyone party a particular position or angle, for the very reason of actually not wanting to create another set of issues to deal with. because, in fact, in the early days, those first six months of course we were in a very desperate situation.
and, in fact, it's unprecedented in your normal life, most people. how do you deal with the? how do you deal with these things? so we tried as best we could to be as balanced as we could around you, but recognizing of course things are outside of your own control. >> you had to rely on your own judgment and unique situation. did you get any help from, talked about these at liaison officers. dadt few assistant? >> very much so. slo, yes, they were brilliant. they really helped us. and certainly press office were coordinating things, so they took majority of the burden off of us. >> and we chose that route as well. spent i'm not going to ask you about the settlement of your
civil claim. can i just ask you about, you refer to a meeting with rupert murdoch, which i think was probably about the 12th or 13th of july. it difficult mean for both of you, is that right? i mean both of you and mr. murdoch. >> yes, it was a very tense meeting. >> and he made it clear that what had happened was totally unacceptable? >> he did, yes. yes, he was very sincere. >> refer to a letter from the company and meeting with the prime minister, which i don't need to go into it unless you would like to. can i ask you though, both of you, about the section of your state which deals with the future, and you touched on this
a little bit, mrs. dowler. this inquiry is here to consider -- [inaudible] which to some extent looking back in time, looking at the present and will look at the future. it's also here to make some recommendation. you know, this is your chance. is there anything you would like to suggest to lord justice leveson, to think about at this stage be? i think when we went to see the three party leaders and prime minister, we were asked that question at that time, and the problem, we are ordinary people so we have no experience in such a public life situation. and certainly no experience for a immediate control, media and all that situation. that's always been in our own best judgment as to how we dealt with this.
>> i think it was more we wanted the extent of it exposed, and then the inquiry could make the decisions. >> yes, i mean, it appears to the inquiry that your judgment being, extremely well exercise throughout, under enormous difficult circumstances. we understand and appreciate that. do you have anything more general which you would invite the inquiry to think about? if not, there's no problem. we will be thinking -- >> i think we'll leave that up to you. >> yeah, i'm sorry. >> how very generous of you, thank you. [laughter] >> well, i have no further questions for you, but i'm extremely grateful for your evidence and the way in which you kindly and, frankly, answered my questions. thanthank you very much. >> thank you very much. mr. shear, i think you're entitled to make applications,
though acting for the dollars, but is there any other question you want to ask? >> i have no further questions to think very much indeed. thank you very much for coming. thank you. spank me we break for five minutes before we call our next witness? >> yes, certainly. >> five minutes. >> right. yes. >> good morning. i will call the next witness, ms. smith. >> i, joan smith, declare and
affirm that the evidence i shall give should be the truth, the whole truth and the whole truth. >> ms. smith, i will say to you as i said before, thank you very much indeed for a green to give evidence. this was a voluntary activity, and i'm conscious that it exposes personal matters that affect you in the public domain which is one of the things you're concerned about, some very grateful. >> thank you. >> good morning, miss smith. can ask you to state your false name? >> joan alison smith spent you provide a witness statement to this inquiry. we can see that. i think on the big screen. but before asking detailed questions about your statement, can ask you to confirm that the content of your witness statements are true to the best of your knowledge in these? >> yes spent on that basis can we start with the you are. we have the witness table in front of us.
for those who don't have the statement, tell us a little bit about who you are. >> i've been a journalist more than 30 years. i started my career in national newspapers on the sunday times. i worked for the sunday times insight into the investigatory journalism, doing stories like the iranian embassy siege, the rupture murders and so on. after that i decided to go freelance and i've written for a lot of national newspapers, "the guardian," both the independence, mainly as a columnist at the evening standard, too. and i also write books but i'm the author of six novels, published novels, and i also ride some books. the most famous book is about woman hating called misogyny. and i also wrote for penguin a book about morality. and then i gave my human rights
work for, from 2000-2004 i chaired the english been committee, which was set up to promote freedom of expression around the world and to look after imprisoned writers and their families. at anyone time we were looking after about 50 writers, academics, poets and so on in places like syria, china, trying to make representations on their behalf. latterly, we started sending people to observe them, their trials if they were in court. i come in 2005, i went to observe the trial in istanbul when he was on trial for insulting identity. then in 2008 i got a literacy project in sierra leone, connecting books in this country. i did that with the times. they gave me place to launch and appeals for children books when i came back. and were able to collect a
quarter of the million 300,000 children books which we shipped out to sierra leone to set of school libraries between 1502000 bucks in different schools. so i do both those things. >> thank you very much. can ask you about one particular part of you cryptically, the when you do with, at the end of paragraph 11 of your statement. 23461 on the screen. this work that you do, or you did for the human rights policy department, campaigning for freedom of expression for journalists around the world. can you tell us briefly about that worked? >> robin was a friend of mine, and in 2001 just before the election he asked me if i would share his last speech as for secretary. we did know it was his last speech. and afterwards he wanted to talk about how he'd put into action
the dimension of foreign policy, which had been a very famous statement that he had made after he became foreign secretary in 1997. at a lunch afterwards i met both his passionate mike boyce and head of the human rights department department, and they sent me we want more involvement with ngos, and panel which has ngo status. and they suggested that if i was thinking of sending someone to observe the trial, and someone like belarus which is a frightening thing to do, to go to court somewhere like that, that we could liaise with the foreign office and you put us in touch with ambassadors and high commissioners. we set about a quite effective system so that if somebody was, i remember there was a trial in belarus in particular. i asked someone from the committee from the pinky me to go and observe the trial. the got a lot of help from the ambassador in minsk was just very fortunate because actually
it was a very unpleasant scene. the court was cleared by the kgb. and we also did things like to work talks every year on the future of turkey's application to join the e.u. and we did a lot of monitoring of human rights in turkey, and would take part in those talks at the foreign office each year and give lists of things like all the bugs that have been banned in turkey in last year and what is going up or down, whether journalists were still being imprisoned and so one. >> a lot of interesting work there. help us breathe how important do you consider freedom of expression for journalists? >> i think it's absolutely essential. the reason i got involved in this voluntary work is that it seems to me that a free press is absolutely a cornerstone, of civil society. if you don't have a free press, which is able to call politicians and big companies
and corporation, multinational corporations, all sorts of people to account than i think you have real problems. i've always felt that i was very lucky to be able to pursue a journalistic career where we did have a free press it because i'm very aware of what happens to journalists in countries where there isn't one. >> it's very interesting work that you do, but can ask you this, do you consider yourself to be -- >> not in the least. i mean, i'm a very minor public figure in the sense that i write books eric and increasingly people who write books are expected to turn up at libére pestle and talk about where we get out ideas from in things like that. but i'm a writer. i can speak in public and i have, but i don't think that i'm somebody who's private life would be of much interest to the reading public. i mean, i'm sure that the papers i write for and people who may be like mike novels, readers would be quite baffled to know who i was.
>> well, moving on to every question about your personal life, i don't really want to ask about any aspect of your personal life. you see in paragraph eight, for a number of years you in a relationship with denis macshane, the np, is that correct a? >> yes spent can ask you this, kind of a delicate question that it was anything intelligent or secretive about that relationship? >> well, then as an icon he was my partner from 2003-2010. i was always quite open about it. just before i first appeared in mr. mulcaire's notes we have been to a conference in venice that tank he was speaking at an early 2004. i remember that we had dinner with the former prime ministers of italy and sweden, and that didn't seem to me to be a very secretive way to conduct a relationship. >> i just want to ask you this, you see in paragraph seven, you
rarely mention your private life when you write in a calm and so on. can you tell me whether you have ever discuss your personal and private life in your column? and if so, what were things you would typically say? >> very rarely. i mean, i remember once denis rang me and said that he and three friends had just got to the summit, that morning, and his very excited about it. and i was writing, i happened to call to the independent that the and of talking about, dinner, the changes in which aging has changed and now people of my generation to things that our parents would never have dreamed up. and i just mentioned that. but is just a sort of half cents about my partner climbed the mountain with three friends and they're all in their late '50s. >> you mentioned a moment ago that you've appeared --
[inaudible] so let me ask you a little bit about your experience of phone hacking if i can. when did you first become aware that you might have been, your voicemail might have been accessed in that way? >> in a pulp issue when i got it in the from a detective at an operational meeting. >> tell us a bit about what happened and what you did. >> i am ranged, i got in touch with a detective, and roback to his e-mail. i gather you're trying to get in touch with me and hear all my details, including my home address and home telephone number, my mobile phone. and he e-mailed straight back and said oh, right, those are the details we've got in mr. mulcaire's notebook. so he invited me to a meeting, and i went to my lawyer, organize a meeting and two detectives came. and i sat next to one of them. and a kind of ceremonial unveiling of the notes, and
you're asked, i'm sure lots of people have come to the spectrum here asked we can show you some pages, photocopy from mr. rogers notebook and can you tell us if you recognize anything. and, of course, the very first pitch from my name, address, my phone numbers. and as pages go by, mr. mulcaire made a note to the fact that is writing for both the independent and the times. and was in for significant to me and what i found shocking was that he, he seems have been a very obsessive notetaker. and his was one thing in the corner of the "news of the world" to steal from a also made a note of dates. and my name and address and details appear in mr. mulcaire's notes for the first time on the fifth of may, 2004, and that the approximate six weeks after denis' eldest daughter was killed in a skydiving accident in australia which had attracted a huge amount of publicity. i was incredibly shocked that in that period when denis was
believed that in the region, as you can imagine is not an easy time for it by 124 euros girl has just died in such circumstances. that the "news of the world" have been interested in both of us to ask mr. mulcaire to listen to our voicemails. >> can you tell us what your reaction was when you saw this notebook and you find out, you had your voicemail's accessed at this time? >> i'm amazed at how shocked i was because in my journalistic life, i've had one or two bad expenses, you know. i was caught in a riot in sierra leone last year, which is pretty unpleasant, and i do know recognize the impact of shocked and on that occasion i didn't because i was just in a daze. i saw these notes, and mr. mulcaire had obviously found out, he made a note that we are going to spain. i was going to a penn committee to meet other people, other
writers. i was going to barcelona. and dennis was actually coming out the following weekend and who's going to make a speech in spain and we were arranging to meet up. i was amazed by the detail of notes that mr. mulcaire had made about flight times and a note saying her to him, so it appeared that he'd been getting information from my voicemail. and the police, the please set to become is there anyway that mr. mulcaire could have got this information elsewhere? and given that it was about two months after madrid, there was a very high level of security around government ministers, they did seem unlikely. so anyway, to answer your question, i remember leaving that meeting and i had to go to a meeting in the city. my mind was just bobbing. and again, as th the dowlers was
in, does that happen, does this explain some the? and i a ride at my meeting. and slightly early -- early. dementia director tenet said are you all right but you look completely white and got a cup of tea. i realized afterwards it was just shocked that i had no idea that was happening. >> what sorts of things we abiding? you are writing columns but what sorts of things were your buddy? >> i was writing a lot for the times, and i was, i was writing columns for the times and asked me to do additional things like vivienne westwood was having a section of the work and asked me to go to a cover feature. site interviewed vivian westwood, you know, my name is on the cover. i was also writing columns. i think is on the eighth of april 2004 -- >> we do have that document. >> yes.
i wrote a column, this column headed celebrities. i think there been a huge amount of interest in the marriage of the veterans at that point. and had been doing what celebrities often do which is trying to kind of negotiate their way, you know, personal crisis, but also not alienating the media. so i wrote a column saying, and this was what was in the back of my mind was that the intrusive reporting of the death of denis' daughter the month before, i wrote a column saying that i think that people make unwise decisions. they think that celebrities think that they can kind of control the media. you know, that they can keep them friendly. and actually the appetite for stories and personal life is so remorseless that they lose control of the story. and so i was saying in this piece that i found it very disturbing that we've gone from a situation where, the idea of privacy used to be a shield or hypocrisy. so people used to do terrible
things in their private lives and pretend they were outstanding, fine christian gentleman and sell. we have moved from that which is not a great thing, the situations where people have almost no privacy at all. so i was thinking this column in the times that i found it incredible shocking that no matter what happens to people, whether it's the reason or marital problem, you are a fairly expected to do with it completely in the public eye and deal with the media. and i both is called i in the times and for weeks at the "news of the world" ask mr. mulcaire to fire me. .net. >> i'm not sure there is one. i think that from what i've been able to understand about mr. mulcaire's activities and the number of names in his notebooks, i think it has been said that the spying was on an industrial scale. and i think almost anybody, this could happen to almost anybody. that's the astonishing thing, that you don't have to be an incredible famous actor or
actress, all you don't even -- you just have to be, coming to the office of some of who is well-known. i think probably that there is such a move for such a gap between culture of the two parts of the press, the kind of what i think of serious press that i write for and the value of the tabloid press insofar as they have any. but it wouldn't even occur to them to look it would probably what i was running and think about the argument. >> you've had a few months to digest the information. how do you feel about that now? tell us a bit about how you felt at having your phone accessed at a time when denis macshane lost his daughter. how do you feel? >> i do think there is a lesson to be drawn from it, with which, i think i mentioned this at one of the lord of the justice seminars, that he seems to me that tabloid culture is so remorseless, its appetite is so
unable to be filled, that the people involved lost any sense they are dealing with human beings. and when i was doing investigative journalism i quite often had to go and knock on the door of somebody who was buried there but it was because i wanted to know how it felt. it was because i was writing about, say, the murders. i introduced to the women who had been attacked by him and survive. there was always a purpose which i could explain and say, you may not want to talk to become if you don't want talk to me i will go with. i see nobody ever did they go away, but i think this is very different. this is just everything has become a story. and we are all characters but i said this in my writing. unit, i think the tabloid press we are just two-dimensional, we are just fodder, stories.
[inaudible] you explained in a number of articles you've written about over the years, including indecent of last year and. [inaudible] used as recent as december 2010 you asked about that relationship, despite the fact it ended some months earlier. what's your view? >> i think, it depends entirely on the context, and he seems to me that there is a difference between somebody and the public eye like a politician, say, who makes, you know, what i would call traditional family values of part of his political platform. ..
and they always come in this chummy way it can you tell us about your relationship with so-and-so? i was nice to them. as a journalist. i want my private life and the public domain i could do it myself and i would get the facts right. so i went i'd had need to nature you so i would speak fairly polite. i also think in december when i got this call, it was only a few months after i left and i don't think the journalist who contacts you realize you care
that you're in a vulnerable state, and which are still processing all the feelings of a long relationship ending. posted by jen and i just been running and i just removed all my close prepay phone rang and i got this person saying john, we guide you and denis are no longer an item. i actually thought what a wonderful metaphor this is. i made the tablet press and why shouldn't i be. >> can i ask you this. some people might think the press are entitled to read about public relationships or figures regardless of whether they make statements about the virtues, what to say to that? >> i think it's confucian i'm not understand the difference between what interest the public and what's in the public interest. i think private life has become
a commodity. there are lots of lots -- i read a whole book about ethics than reality and i think adults live their lives in tough road different ways now. for example, i think that the legalization is a great advance and i also think that there should be available to them. so i think adults live their lives in a sophisticated way and they don't use one model. yet the tablet press seems to live in a kind of 1950s world wherever and get married chemist is married and if anything happens outside that denies the story. >> you're referring your statement, first is an article from team of june, 2005. and the headline players secretly divorced after europe. and the other article --
[inaudible] blair secretly divorced. >> i didn't know you could be secretly divorced. i thought you had to go to court and is listed and so on. i think there is quite interesting confusion between secret and private. i think that's probably -- i won't speak for him, but he regarded his vote to worse as a private matter and didn't go around talking to journalists as a teaching i just got dropped, but i can't see how a speaker. >> the other article you just mentioned, the one where you were contacted -- [inaudible]
>> now, you never even crossed my mind. because i seemed to many versions of press regulations in this country come the press council on the current pcc and i don't think that they are adequate bodies to deal with this kind of problem. by the time you complain to them the article is out there anyway not your friends have rented. so you're not going to get much in the way of her dress. >> i've been asked to ask another question to you about an article you wrote in the evening standard on the fifth of december 2001. this appears to be ashville prayer of praise that -- [inaudible]
the issues occurring between the two parties at that time and sat at the end. let me ask you this. i have been asked to ask this, he wrote about elizabeth hurley. he wrote about their private life. if you see the tablet had become overzealous by reporting, why do you yourself write articles about celebrities? >> ecocide been writing since the 1990s about the mistake i think celebrities make a putting too much of their private life in the public domain. of course i didn't bring them out. i didn't ask them about her private life. they put that in the public domain. if you read the article, what i
am saying is this is a very dangerous thing to do. i said the same thing about the late princess diana and it goes back to something i said earlier that people think they can put their private life in the public domain and still control what is said about them. what worries me is given the underlying touching at the tablet to somebody at the time elizabeth hurley was pregnant and i thought she was in a very vulnerable state under such a kind of underlying misogyny in the media type that is quite a dangerous track shoe is on. if you look, you'll see that he talk about that kind of underlying the women in our culture who are beautiful and base careers on their appearance in the danger that they lose their dictation to use an old-fashioned word and so i'm always incredibly happy when i get a chance to smuggle some insight ideas into pot letterpress.
>> thank you very much. >> two final questions. [inaudible] in light of your experience, can i ask you this? i want to know whether you have any ease on the current regulation? doesn't work and you have any views? >> no, i don't think it does work. and very opposed to any idea of state regulation are completely opposed to the idea of licensing a journalist. i think broadly there's two things that need to happen. once i regulation the other culture. in terms of regulation i think there needs to be a kind of success that body to the pcc, which isn't dominated by edifice, which has more dictation from outside. i think tried to be things like -- i think it out to be if newspapers don't take part in it and i think they should use
their vat exemption chemist there should be a carrot and stick taking part in appeared i think there are to be a much faster right of reply. i think it should also take mediation in situations like were neither might be involved. it needs to be a much more complex and capable body. on top of that i think what needs to tap into changing culture and i think we do have a tablet culture, which i think is almost infantile and its attitude to sex and private life. tablet attacks go around like children. if you go with the astonishing information that parents have sex and they can resist peeking around the door and the rest of us get on and live our lives. and i think that obsession with sex and private life has become remorseless and penniless in terms of what it does to notch a
celebrities and private terms, but just ordinary people. >> will thank you very much. is there anything else you would like to add is a question? >> i don't think so. >> i've got a couple. you identified on a number of occasions the ethics of what she's called the tablet press. but as they are or should there be any difference to the ethical considerations which i put into the work of reporters by any section of the media? >> now, i don't think there said and i think that's a real problem. when i first started out as a journalist, i wasn't particularly aware of any codes of ethics, but i knew i had become a journalist. in a kind of young idealistic way i wanted to change the world
and a hundred times it may be necessary to break the law. i was threatened with a prosecution that didn't actually happen. but i think the two things have diverged much to car and it should be possible to have a vibrant tablet press which does the kinds of things a few decades ago when the tabloids had crusading paper, but that is not something they see themselves doing anymore. and so there is a separation which i think is damaging. people like me who write what i was talking about earlier i feel like a different breed from the ethics in the tablet paper. >> the second question since you seen the material they assembled from the notebooks, do you have any sense of whether you are
being targeted because of you are because you're not just to mr. macshane? >> i think the latter. my kind of cassius is made as proof of much much higher. so they got interested in him. once they got interested in him, they got interested in me. so i spoke on the collateral damage. >> okay. thank you. thank you very much. >> i think we need a short break. >> yes, i think that's sensible. i'll be content just to let people have a break. i will say the same two witnesses who are coming. this is not always entirely pleasant audience. thank you. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> i swear by almighty cut the evidence he gave me the whole truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth. >> sure your full name. ! graham julian shear. >> you have provided a statement november 2011 that states the truth at the end of that statement. do you confirm the truth of that statement? >> i do. >> thank you very much. first i will ask you to please tell us about yourself. >> i am a solicitor and partner at international law firm based in the city of london. a qualified in 1989. i practiced initially commercial lot and then became a commercial litigator and insulted commercial litigator. i have a very broad and
wide-ranging commercial litigation practice within area of specialism and media were. the first major case that handled that brought me into the close contact with media was an active for robbie williams in the breakup to take that in 1995 during the latter part of the 90s and into the present day i backed it for a broad set term of the actors and acting from high profile that teen world for sportsmen, sportswomen, especially celebrities, for politicians, for a very broad range of those who could become a bit of interest to the media. >> and then i think it's great you are a claimant and the voicemail interception
litigation, which is in the chancellor division. he has suggested that in january of next year. >> that's correct. >> you understand we cannot fairly discuss merits of your individual case as to the facts of your individual case. your statement covers matter of opinion and hearsay evidence on one hand, but also direct evidence on the other. i will ask you first of the direct evidence from october 28. you referred to one incident when you arrange to meet a clan in the middle of a high-profile crisis at a secret location in oxford chair and you were followed by a report for talk of her. >> yes. over the years have acted on some extremely high-profile cases. and it is a fact that become
quite well known by those in the press who are interested in those cases and that they would often camp outside my office and there've or if i wanted to have are the clients need to have a private meeting would often arrange to do it somewhere other than my office appeared on this particular occasion, the subject matter was extremely high profile and the whereabouts of the person concerned were of interest to the media generally, often because i'm in this case i'm sure it was the case because the picture was the thing they wanted to publish. say one of current picture. i spoke with the client who is quite a long way away from this normal residence we arranged a meeting place in the oxfordshire countryside at a hotel. i have absolutely no idea who followed me. the likelihood it was probably a
member of the brodsky was someone who was given the newspapers or general media concern, but i was solid on that trip. unfortunate for the person telling me if he got lost somewhere behind me on the journey. so as i say, i have no idea the actual person giving the talks was. >> any say in paragraph 9 before the phone hacking scandal broke to pay often said to dissolve the press was monitoring their electronic communications. how often did this happen? >> i would say very regularly. certainly in the period from about the 2004, 2005 onwards. clients began to believe that coincidences were being replaced
by more likely interception of some form or another. i recall quite clearly clients becoming irritated or frustrated and suspicious that private information was finding its way into the popular media and they identified this with a straight fact that they knew would only privy to one or two people were being published. it caused them to ask questions not only of their family and friends, but even as me. and i recall quite clearly. and then it became so continuous that the suspicion of the director of those who could have leaked it began to become more focused in their own minds about whether or not this information was being obtained by surveillance. and for a variety of reasons those that i acted for, some
more than others, became more used to changing the mobile telephone numbers enriching gentoo or three times a year. and now is a common way for people to get themselves some confidence, that perhaps there was a wit that although they had no actual evidence or basis other than there is suspicion that could prevent easy access to information about them. >> yes. you refer to a specific incident in early 2028. can you tell us a little more about pet in paragraph 30 of your statement? as i say, i've acted on the radio high-profile cases and once again this was an extremely high-profile matter where there were two i have involved and the press had different but equally intensive interest in both of them.
there is obviously a connection between them. the increase in interest i got to a point of almost fevered committee and the house have been surrounded by the press for seven days. it was because of events that were occurring and concern over events that could occur that he needed to seek advice from me. both have a lower and also common sense advice hopefully as well. [inaudible] >> occasionally. occasionally the clients need to be top realities of what can occur as well as the legal advice of the circumstance in which they find themselves and hopefully i provided both. they wanted to come see me. and we knew that if i went to them, then that would
automatically -- not just accelerate, but heighten interest. and if they came to my office once again that would become an obvious point to focus for the media and the media storm and develop you the idea was then only rose literally an hour or so before the meeting with a suggested that if they could get out of the house that they should come to my house because the media didn't know where he lived. and they thought that was a pretty good idea in the data in the country and they felt if there was anybody who was following that they could probably use them in traffic or find someway to make it to my home. and i recall very clearly saying with us. the new tax. fact is you could send text and a text and either defend him a voicemail message of my home address and details of etiquette
pair because he obviously needs to put a man and also i want to explain which way was probably the best for him coming from where he lived or where they lived. and i remember very clearly been on my front door and locking out because i wanted to be there when they arrived and i took a space magi for them to part her car. i was quite flabbergasted when several minutes before they arrived, two cars turned up with four or five people in each car that preceded them. in one end of my street and went a little further down have a few -- the clients, so it was absolutely clear to me that the paths are media concern were well aware of where they were
going to and yet only i was privy to that information because i left a message and sent the text and only they were privy to it. so it was quite an extraordinary event. which was followed by obviously quite intensive interest in what was happening inside my house for the rest of that day in the medias outside for many hours. >> of course everything happening within your house. >> yes it was. he was a private time not only for the client circumstances that related to them, but it was also a matter for them to use the can obtain legal advice, which is obviously professional privy. >> were you aware -- you are so
concerned that she read specifically to the information commission office and for the metropolitan police can you give the date 2008, 2009 commenced his senior class and your name is on the list for the general inquiry in relation to phone hacking. you say at the end of that response from the police on the information commission that they didn't reply to your letter or are you saying that that they did reply and say you and your class for not this subject to phone hacking? >> well, i became interested in the development of the information that came out of the various criminal trials that have taken place. but i asked the clients around 2007 what they like to take matters over? by 2008 a number of them had indicated that they did.
some didn't actually. some preferred or felt that they could suffer recrimination or further interest by the media by pursuing an action and decided that i really didn't want to pursue it. so as you say what you said around two 2000 the 2009 and sent a long list of clients means that the request to both the police and the information. i included my name on it as a suggestion of one of my partners and i may be collaterally interested to them and could have been subject. so when i received a response they did receive a response from the information commissioner metropolitan police, the response was no information had been found in any names contained on the list. i reported back to clients is that information. at the time i recall thinking well, there's two circumstances.
either they were all of that data and evidence that then collated and reviewed and no names have been found, or they hadn't finished the review. on the third option was actually not qualified evidence which related to misconduct by the news of the world had actually been retained and considered. but i reported that to the clients and some of them were -- i'd say felt that it was unlikely that they had not been subject to some form of surveillance and others are actually very pleased that their names didn't appear. it was with some surprise that in the early part of this year, but in january, february dodos contact did by officers from operation meeting to come see me
and talk to me about a number of client who did appear in the evidence that something reviewed by operation weekly and they came to see me and started to go through the process. >> yes. and were you shown pages which related to you? >> by wes. actually it's become almost a regular event. a specific officer was assigned to me and to my client and i was showing the information that related to my name in the detail of that and it jumped out off the page at me. although it wasn't quite as specific as i now know two other
clients, but i immediately recognized the content of voicemail messages that have been left for me in conversations that have followed those messages. they were slightly cryptic, but the detail is very clear and it related to information in a device that i get into a clients and to others who are rising him in relation to the case where i was acting for that client on a regular matter. >> i think news international that were not going to contradict anything of what you just said you are what you just said was maybe an issue in civil proceedings. >> they understand not been obviously i spoken to or im aware that those about the messages for me also recall what was said at that time as well.
>> webpages understand not. in relation to the advice he would give in, are you saying i was caught in a voicemail message? >> now, i was actually in a hearing at the time and the way in which it worked is that i would leave messages for those who are representing my client and i left messages for me and they also received contact from third-party news cases, actually from a journalist and i left a very detailed message for me. >> -athon messages. so yes, there are messages to them. >> and you refer specifically to one instance in paragraph 36, advising regulatory proceedings.